The Revival of Ray XXIV

“Justice Krishna Iyer delivered a concurring opinion in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, (1975) 1 SCC 774, expressing a thought process which would be of significant relevance to the issue in hand. “The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray XXIV"

The Revival of Ray XXII

Hon’ble Justice Arun Misra, while explaining Section 108 of The Companies Act [Ram Parshottam Mittal v. Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2017], quoted Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray [Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan, (1977) 2 SCC 424]; My Lord, Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan, […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray XXII"

Moral Turpitude II

“Respondent who was working with State Bank of India at Puducherry was discharged from service for an offence involving moral turpitude. Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts and the circumstances of the case. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied for judging an offence involving moral turpitude are: a) […]

Read more "Moral Turpitude II"

Then Mark, Denmark

“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark“, sensed Marcellus, said Shakespeare in Hamlet, and it can similarly be said that something is rotten in the Allahabad High Court, said Hon’ble Judges Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra in Raja Khan vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, (2011) 1 SCC (LS) 359. The rot was, […]

Read more "Then Mark, Denmark"

Might and Ought

Hon’ble Justice S Rangarajan in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., ILR (1975) II Delhi 174 noticed: “The words employed – might and ought – are cumulative; they are not in the alternative.” The words “might and ought” are used in a conjunctive sense. Lord Morris in Kameswar Pershad, 1892 SCC Online PC 16 […]

Read more "Might and Ought"

Animus Possidendi

‘De Facto’ Possessor of Object v. ‘De Jure’ Owner of Object ≈ ‘Actually’ Has v. ‘Ought’ to Have “A person who asserts possessory title over a particular property must show that he is under settled or established possession of the said property – settled possession means such possession over the property which has existed for […]

Read more "Animus Possidendi"

Retrospective v. Retroactive

“Two ­Judge Bench in State Bank’s Staff Union (Madras Circle) v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 584 had occasion to examine the concept. Further in Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills v. Union of India, 2007 (12) SCC 198 following has been laid down: “Retrospective means looking backward, contemplating what is past, having reference to a […]

Read more "Retrospective v. Retroactive"