“The maxim is quite well-known. 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. “Where there are general words in a later legislation capable of reasonable […]Read more "Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant"
“In Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156 this Court considered the concept of unconscionable bargain. “The word ‘unconscionable’ is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, [Third Edition, Volume II, Page 2288] when used with reference to actions, etc. as “showing no regard for conscience; irreconcilable with what is right or reasonable”. An unconscionable […]Read more "Unconscionable Bargain"
“It will be noticed that the definition is an exhaustive one as it uses the expression “means and includes”. It is settled law that such definitions are meant to be exhaustive in nature [2014 (10) SCALE 394].” “It will be noticed that the definition is a ‘means’ and ‘includes’ one. It is well settled that […]Read more "A “Means and Includes” Definition IV"
Section 362 begins with the words “save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force”. Legislature was aware that there are situations where altering or reviewing of a Criminal Court Judgment is contemplated in the Code itself or any other law for the time being in […]Read more "Section 362 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973"
“It is not quite accurate to say that the word ‘may’, by itself, acquires the meaning of ‘must’ or ‘shall’ sometimes.” – Dharti Dhan, (1977) 2 SCC 166. “It is not to be taken that once the word ‘may’ is used, it per se would be directory. In other words, it is not merely the […]Read more "May & Shall"
“In Fletcher v. Bealey (1884) 28 Ch. D. 688 a quia timet action was asked for to interdict the tort of nuisance in order to prevent noxious liquid from flowing into a river. Pearson, J. after referring to earlier Judgments on quia timet action then held: “I do not think, therefore, that I shall be […]Read more "Quia Timet"
“In a Judgment reported as HMT Ltd. v. Mudappa, (2007) 9 SCC 768 quoting from earlier Judgment of this Court reported as State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, (2003) 4 SCC 739 it was held that ‘legal malice’ or ‘malice in law’ means ‘something done without lawful excuse’. It is an act done wrongfully and […]Read more "Legal Malice"