02-11-2018 – 15-05-2023 The rule flowing from the maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’ has been i) considered in Hari Shankar Jain, (1978) 4 SCC 16 and ii) explained in Mary Seward v. Owner of “Vera Cruz”, (1884) 10 AC 59, 68. Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts, [Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 87-101 of 2014]. […]
Read more "Random Collectibles of Justice M.R. Shah at Supreme Court"
RBI has been issuing ‘Master Directions’ on diverse issues since 2016. Every proceeding which involves civil consequences or adversely affects a citizen should be in accordance with Principles of Natural Justice. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70 held, since blacklisting affects privileges of a blacklisted person, fundamentals […]
Read more "Principles of Natural Justice VIII / The Revival of Ray XCI"
It was permissible for Registered Medical Practitioner-S. Athilakshmi to practice medicine when not performing her duty as an Associate Professor and Head of Dermatology Department in Government Omandurar Medical College, Chennai. Drugs Inspector sought to prosecute S. Athilakshmi under Section 18(c) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. S. Athilakshmi had not ‘stocked’ medicines for […]
Read more "Drugs & Cosmetics"
The question would arise, whether invention claimed in ‘Air Decontamination Assembly’ [Application No. 201741016833] is no more than a workshop improvement/mere application of an old contrivance? Can it be described as a lucky accident? In opinion of this Court, subject invention is not a mere addition to a well-known combination. It has some new features […]
Read more "Air Purifier"
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong, (1874) 3 PC 221; Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138; Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85; State of Haryana […]
Read more "Compassionate Appointment VI"
Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath, Lucknow v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 405 held, there is a distinction between encroachment on judicial power and nullification of effect of a judicial decision by changing law retrospectively. The former is outside competence of Legislature. The latter is within its permissible limits. It would be permissible for Legislature […]
Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna"
Rule 54(14)(b) of The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 requires, ‘family’ member of a deceased Government Servant must have a close nexus with the deceased Government Servant. Therefore, a son or daughter adopted by a widow of a deceased Government Servant, after death of the Government Servant, could not be included within definition of […]
Read more "Pension is Not a Bounty IV"
R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 laid down, laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, et cetera. Bhavesh D. Parish v. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC 471 observed, while dealing with economic legislation, Court would […]
Read more "Unchartered Ocean of Policy Decision VI"
Needless to say, no one can either be taxed or penalized for holding an opinion which is not in conformity with constitutional values. It is only when an opinion gets translated into action and such action results in injury or harm or loss, an action in tort will lie. Courts cannot turn a blind […]
Read more "Morality of Constitutional Tort"
Shri P. Chidambaram submits, result of demonetization was disastrous. But, if Notification No. 3407(E) [08.11.2016] had a nexus with objectives to be achieved, Notification No. 3407(E) [08.11.2016] would not be bad in law merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. It will not be proper for Court to enter into an area which should be […]
Read more "Unchartered Ocean of Policy Decision V / The Demonetization Recommendation"
Constitution Bench in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421 held, the words ‘rules’ and ‘regulations’ are used in an Act to limit powers of a statutory authority; any action of such bodies in excess of their power or in violation of restrictions placed is ultra vires; statutory bodies cannot use […]
Read more "The Revival of Ray XC"
With greatest respect to Hon’ble Bench [R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy JJ] which dealt with K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, 2020 5 SCC 689, we find, attention was not invited to binding decisions of Coordinate Bench in M. Subba Reddy v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (2004) 6 SCC 729 and Constitution […]
Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXXIII: K. Meghachandra, (2020) 5 SCC 689"
Pramod applied for the post of a Police Constable. He disclosed, he had been tried for an offence under Section 498A, IPC. As he was involved in a criminal case earlier, though acquitted, his candidature was rejected. As such there was no suppression. Pramod was acquitted 7 years before he applied for the post […]
Read more "Honourable Acquittal V"
In Banchhanidhi Rath v. State of Orissa, (1972) 4 SCC 781 this Court declared, if a right is claimed in terms of a contract such a right cannot be enforced in a Writ Petition. In Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr., (1975) 1 SCC 737 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed, Writ […]
Read more "Writ Jurisdiction in Contractual Arena II / The Revival of Ray LXXXVIII"
An insurance contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all ‘material facts’ by both parties. Manmohan Nanda v. United Insurance, (2022) 4 SCC 582 summarizes same. A contract meant to cover a shop situated in a basement had an exclusion clause which specified, the contract did not cover the basement. Tata AIG General Insurance […]
Read more "The Doctrine of Blue Pencil"
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2019 As laid down by this Court, just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals also cannot be treated equally. Treating economically weaker sections of citizens as a separate class would be a reasonable classification and could not be termed as an […]
Read more "Compensatory Discrimination / The Revival of Ray LXXXVII"
Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine Ltd.,  RPC 59; England and Wales Court of Appeals in Pozzoli Spa v. BDMO SA,  EWHC 1398 (Ch); F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2016 (65) PTC 1 (DEL); Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1700; […]
Read more "Simplicity in Invention"
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills, (1979) 2 SCC 409 was authored by Bhagwati J for a Two-Judge Bench. Within 2 years, Kailasam J for a Two-Judge Bench in Jit Ram Shiv Kumar, (1981) 1 SCC 11 found fault in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills and held, observations made were not in tune with Judgments of Constitution Benches […]
Read more "Promissory Estoppel X"
It is evident, Plaintiff has a registered trade mark – ‘NO TURN’. Plaintiff has been in continuous use of this trade mark since 15.01.2008. Defendant is the prior user of the mark since 2007. The use of the mark by Defendant is intermittent and not voluminous so as to establish the defence under Section 34 […]
Read more "No Turn"
‘Classic Trinity Test’ of ‘Goodwill, Misrepresentation and Damages’ [Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc,  1 All ER 873] – Satisfied. _____ Both parties claim proprietary rights and utilize the mark ‘GeoCrete’ in respect of identical goods. To permit concurrent use, in factual situation noted, would cause public confusion and result in violation […]
Read more "One Mark, One Source, One Proprietor"
You must be logged in to post a comment.