The Revival of Ray XC

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 […]

Quia Timet III

Learned Counsel for Appellant-Defendant states, Learned Single Judge has erred in not considering: Respondent-Plaintiff had bypassed Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which prescribes pre-institution mediation as a mandatory requirement. Respondent-Plaintiff is not only a prior adopter but also a prior registrant and allegation of suppression is irrelevant. Court is in agreement, packaging […]

Referred to Larger Bench XVII Answered: Illegal Gratification I

“The question, ‘whether in absence of evidence of complainant / direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability / guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?’, requires a Larger […]

Referred to Larger Bench XXXIII: K. Meghachandra, (2020) 5 SCC 689

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 […]

Quia Timet II / The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint VII

My Lord, Allegations in Plaint are Sufficient? No. In assessing whether a quia timet plaint can be rejected outright [Order 7, Rule 11], Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v. Natco Pharma Limited, (2014) 212 DLT 321 cautions, a quia timet action must not be speculative, merely alleging without factual basis. The statement of claim must allege […]

Product Configuration Trade Dress

Plaintiffs are manufacturers of containers, used to store food products, sold under the brand name ’Tupperware’. Defendant is also a manufacturer of containers, used for storage of food products, sold under the brand name ‘Signoraware’. Plaintiffs have brought this action seeking remedies in respect of Plaintiffs’ Suit Products [MM Square, Best Lunch Bag and Spice […]

Section 319 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 II

Court’s power under Section 319 has been reiterated in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. It has been held, such power is available before pronouncement of a Judgment. After pronouncement of a Judgment of conviction, trial is not complete. Though, it may be so in case of acquittal. A Judge is […]

Dhola Maaru v. Dhola Tharu

Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 177 observed, threat of selling offending goods in Delhi would itself confer jurisdiction to Courts in Delhi to entertain a suit claiming injunction. Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688 held, where an issue of territorial jurisdiction is raised, plaints need to […]

The Case of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan

Amitabh Bachchan alleges violation of his ‘publicity rights as a celebrity’ as has also been recognized by this Court in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382. It cannot seriously be disputed, Amitabh Bachchan is a well-known personality and is also represented in various advertisements. Amitabh Bachchan is aggrieved by unauthorized […]

The Revival of Ray LXXXIX

Manish Kumar v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 1 has exhaustively referred to case law, on reasonable classification under Article 14, to observe, Article 14 frowns upon what constitutes hostile discrimination but does not bar classification which is reasonable. To answer whether a classification is reasonable, one must look beyond the classification to the […]

Indira Jaising

October, 1980 – Abdul Rahman Antulay set up Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratisthan Trust which had Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Trustees. It was a prayer, Court should issue a Writ of Quo Warranto declaring Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 disqualified from continuing to hold office. _____ This constitutional action stands in a class by […]

Writ Jurisdiction in Contractual Arena II / The Revival of Ray LXXXVIII

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 […]

Claim of Juvenility IV

The crime is heinous. Its execution was vicious and cruel, by any stretch of imagination. The entire crime was calculated and ruthless. Our adjudication is restricted to, whether Shubam Sangra was a juvenile on date of commission of offence. The ratio discernible is, credibility and acceptability of documents would depend on facts and circumstances. We […]

The Doctrine of Blue Pencil

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 […]

Compensatory Discrimination / The Revival of Ray LXXXVII

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 […]

Ethnic

Mumbai witnessed mob frenzy, violence, communal tension and riots from 06.12.1992 to 10.12.1992 and from 06.01.1993 to 20.01.1993. When citizens of Mumbai were about to breathe a sigh of relief, there were serial bomb blasts on 12.03.1993. The meaning of ‘ethnic’ according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary is, “of or relating to large groups of people […]

Review of Death Penalty XXXII

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1 quoted in Ajay Kumar Pal v. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 478 had laid down, undue long delay in execution of Death Sentence would entitle prayer of commutation of Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment. First and foremost, time taken cannot be called or termed […]

Contempt Jurisdiction X

Court convicted the contemnor for having committed civil and criminal contempt. It had become evident, the contemnor has, in his well-calculated and deliberate scheme of things, given assurances and undertakings to mislead Courts in India, including this Court, when he had no intention to comply or abide by any of his assurances. Acts would demonstrate, […]

Faraaz

As discussed, right to privacy is not inheritable by heirs of deceased. Plaintiffs may have been successful if their personal right to privacy was in any way being infringed by making of this movie. But, unfortunately, no such circumstance has been pleaded by Plaintiffs. It is asserted, Plaintiffs are entitled to be left alone, to […]

Promissory Estoppel X

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 […]

The Last Word

A Diversion for Lawyers and Others

Nature of Judicial Power