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"
Policy-making continues to be in sole domain of Executive. Judiciary does not possess authority or competence to assume the role of Executive, which is democratically accountable for its actions and has access to resources which are instrumental to policy formulation. However, this ‘separation of powers’ does not result in Courts lacking jurisdiction in conducting a […]Read more "Dialogic Jurisdiction"
The theme of ‘gradual implementation’ of law or legal principles, was also spoken about in Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 which held, there is no constitutional imperative that a law or policy should be implemented all at once: “when the policies have far-reaching implications and are dynamic in nature, their implementation […]Read more "Gradual Implementation"
Gulu Ezekiel, Myth-Busting: Indian Cricket Behind The Headlines, (Rupa, 2021) is as fascinating to read as it must have been to research on and eventually write. “The whole idea is to bust long-held myths spread.” There are charming, structured anecdotes aplenty. Consider these: Farokh Engineer has been claiming, he was the First Indian Cricketer to […]Read more "Kapil’s 175*"
There is no bar on High Court’s power to reappreciate evidence against acquittal [Sangappa v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 686]. Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘exaggeration’ as “fact of making something larger, more important, better or worse than it really is.” Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as “enlarged or altered beyond normal proportions.” These expressions […]Read more "Exaggeration"
Time fleets, generations grow, society changes, values and needs also change by time. There can be no denial, law should change with changing time and changing needs of society. Famous words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in Towne v. Eisner, 245 US 425 (1918): “Word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is […]Read more "Precedential Certainty / The Revival of Ray LXVI"
Repugnancy can be looked at from three distinct perspectives. The first is where provision of a State enactment is directly in conflict with a law enacted by Parliament. Compliance with one is impossible along with obedience to the other. The second is where regulation of subject matter by Parliament is so complete as a code, […]Read more "Repugnancy"
Constitution Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481 has expounded, private unaided school management must have absolute autonomy to determine school fees. The consistent view has been restated and enunciated by Constitution Bench in Modern Dental College and Research Centre, (2016) 7 SCC 353 in Paragraph 75. Though fee can be fixed by […]Read more "Permissible School Fees"
K. Crenshaw has been credited for coining the term ‘intersectionality’. “Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a […]Read more "Intersectionality"
In the present case, we are concerned with Article 224A. Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakash Chandra, (1974) 1 SCC 128 observed, if a person appointed under Article 224A was not considered to be a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of jurisdiction, powers and privileges, the question of appointing such a person would […]Read more "An Alive Article 224A / The Revival of Ray LXV"
My Lord, Two Companies, incorporated in India, can Arbitrate outside India? Yes. It is clear, there can be more than one ratio decidendi to a Judgment. Jacobs v. London County Council, (1950) 1 All ER 737 has been followed in State of Gujarat v. M.P. Jadeja, (2013) 2 SCC 300 and in Shayara Bano v. […]Read more "Seat of Arbitration II"
Courts continue to struggle with the humongous pendency under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Offences that are committed as part of the same transaction can be tried jointly as per Section 220 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. What is meant by ‘same transaction’ is not defined. Indeed, it would always […]Read more "Same Transaction"
This Court in Madhusudan Gordhandas v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd., (1971) 3 SCC 632 observed: If the debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, Court will not wind-up the Company [London and Paris Banking Corporation, (1874) LR 19 Eq 444; Brighton Club and Horfold Hotel Co. Ltd., (1865) 35 […]Read more "Disputed Company Debt / The Revival of Ray LXIV"
In Lau v. Chu,  1 WLR 4656 House of Lords indicated, “just and equitable winding up may be ordered where the company’s members have fallen out in two related but distinct situations, which may or may not overlap.” The first of these is labelled as “functional dead lock” of a paralyzing kind, clearly recognized […]Read more "Functional Dead Lock"
It is well settled, actions of the State with oblique or indirect object will be attributed to ‘malice in law’. Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania,(2010) 9 SCC 437 has summarized as follows: “Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part […]Read more "Legal Malice II"
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company, (1984) 4 SCC 679 held, “expressions such as “arising out of” or “in respect of” or “in connection with” or “in relation to” or “in consequence of” or “concerning” or “relating to” the contract are of the widest amplitude and content.” Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain v. Eknath Vithal […]Read more "Arising Out Of / Relating To"
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 held, if an interpretation leads to a conclusion that the word used by the Legislature is redundant, it should be avoided as the presumption is Legislature has deliberately and consciously used the word of carrying out the purpose of the Act. The legal maxim ‘a […]Read more "A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum"
A reading [State of Assam v. Ranga Mahammad, (1967) 1 SCR 454; Jagdish Chander Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd., (1964) 8 SCR 50; Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, (1967) 3 SCR 377; CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, (2001) 9 SCC 432; Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2005) 2 SCC […]Read more "Civil Sheep & Criminal Wolf"
One of the meanings of expression ‘inconsistent’ as approved by this Court is mutually repugnant or contradictory. Constitution itself has used the words ‘inconsistency’ and ‘repugnancy’ interchangeably. Things are inconsistent when they cannot stand together at the same time and one law is inconsistent with another law, when the command or power or provision in […]Read more "The Question of Apparent Conflict"