Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1982) 2 SCC 403: Preventive Detention is devised to afford protection to society. Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 395: if there is any delay in arresting, pursuant to ‘order of detention’, which is prima facie unreasonable, State must give reasons explaining. Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State […]Read more "Preventive Detention Statute IV"
There exists a clear conflict. It is necessary to have clarity. _____ Same-Day Sentencing in a Capital Offence violates Principles of Natural Justice and is opposed to Section 235(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 14 SCC 290; Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXXI: Two Sets of Three-Judge Benches"
Section 12A, inserted by The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018, cannot be described as a mere procedural law. Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavor. It is logical, just and imperative, to attempt and persevere in out-of-the-box thinking. At least when Parliament has decided to […]Read more "The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint VI"
A cargo containing fruits and vegetables was sent twice from Mumbai to Canada via London by employing services of British Airways. Those aggrieved against air carriers, are barred, even if accompanied by sufficient cause, to bring an action for damages after 2 years. Our task is to decipher Rule 30 of Second Schedule of […]Read more "The Plea of Limitation XVIII: Air Carriers"
It is quite extraordinary, how word mark ‘Ganesh’ was registered without any restriction or limitation. When a mark is registered, Registering Authority may do so without any condition or limitation. Absence of a disclaimer does not always vest an exclusive right over a word mark. In our case, registration of word mark ‘Ganesh’ was without […]Read more "Name of God"
My Lord, Revocation Petition under Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970 is subject to The Limitation Act, 1963? No. Section 2(1)(t) of The Patents Act, 1970 defines a ‘person interested’. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra, (2014) 15 SCC 360 observed, a person may not be a ‘person interested’ when grant of concerned patent was […]Read more "Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970 I"
The distinction between a disturbance to ‘law and order’ and a disturbance to ‘public order’ has been clearly settled by a Constitution Bench in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740. Court has held, every ‘disorder’ does not meet threshold of a disturbance to ‘public order’, unless it affects community at […]Read more "Preventive Detention Statute III"
While right to property is no longer a fundamental right [The Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978], right against deprivation of property, unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A. Nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process or authorization of law. The […]Read more "Right to Property"
A party should not be penalized for failing to adopt legal proceedings when facts or documents have been wilfully concealed from him. A party who had acted fraudulently should not be given benefit of limitation, running in its favor, by virtue of such frauds [Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549]. Section 17 of […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXVII: The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint IV"
My Lord, Was Resignation of Ms. X, on 15/07/2014, Voluntary? We are only examining, i) correctness of Order of Transfer, ii) rejection of ‘representations’ and iii) question as to whether ‘resignation’ could be construed to be voluntary or not. Ms. X tendered a ‘resignation’ on 15/07/2014, which was accepted by Government of Madhya Pradesh, Law […]Read more "Involuntary Resignation"
Section 22 of The Limitation Act, 1963 provides for computation of limitation in case of a continuing breach of contract or tort. Constitution Bench in M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1 examined precedents and observed, “a ‘continuing wrong’ arises where there is an obligation imposed by law, agreement or otherwise to continue […]Read more "The Plea of Limitation XVII: Continuing Wrong"
The question had been floating for a while. It was January 1, 2019 when I wondered who amongst then Chief Justices of HCs, if elevated, could be our 51st CJI. January 18, 2019 – we finally received an answer. CJI No. 51 would be Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna who wasn’t ever a Chief Justice of […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Article No. 1101"
Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited was formerly known as Remi Metals Gujarat Limited. Arbitral Tribunal held, merely having a clause in contract making ‘time of essence’ would not be determinative. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Remi Metals (now Welspun), submitted, view taken by Arbitral Tribunal was reasonable, plausible and can be sustained. We need to ascertain […]Read more "Time of Essence"
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha is said to have procured fake Remdesivir injections which were administered to patients during COVID-19 pandemic to make illegal profits. Article 22 of the Constitution provides specific protections to undertrials and detainees in India. The communication of grounds is in aid of facilitating right of detenu to submit a representation against ‘order […]Read more "Preventive Detention Statute II / The Revival of Ray LXXIV"
Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 204 considered applicability of Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 to reckoning of limitation under Section 61(1) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The law on limitation with respect to IBC is settled and emphatic in its denunciation of delays [Essar Steel […]Read more "Condonation of Delay X: Special Statues"
Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It cannot be said, Learned Appellate Tribunal committed any error in not condoning the delay of 44 days. Unless the Parliament has […]Read more "Condonation of Delay: 44"
Senior Advocate, Sanjoy Ghose argued for Captain Arvind Kumar Sharma, Captain K Sai Sashanka, Captain Jeetender Yadav, Captain Jitender Singh Randhawa, Captain Adish M. Chavan, Captain Reuben James, Captain B Sujimon, Captain Vishal V Chandorkar and Captain Vijay Kumar Dahiya before Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Singh of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The common thread was […]Read more "Façade of ‘Commercial Decision’"
“What’s in a name?“, said Juliet. It conveys, natural characteristics of an individual are more important than his/her artificial/acquired characteristics. A poetic statement as it certainly is, it does not go in tune with significance of a ‘name’ in marking identity of an individual in his/her societal transactions. An individual must be in complete control […]Read more "Names in CBSE Certificates"
As has been held in Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 every argumentative novelty does not undo a settled position of law. Section 19 of The Limitation Act, 1908 corresponds to Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963. Khan Bahadur Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga Prasad, (1962) 1 SCR 140 […]Read more "The Plea of Limitation XVI: Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963"
N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 has been wrongly decided and is therefore overruled. For appeals filed under Section 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of The Limitation Act, 1963 or Section 13(1A) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 a delay […]Read more "Section 37 of The Arbitration Act III"