Tej Prakash Pathak, (2013) 4 SCC 540 doubted K. Manjusree, (2008) 3 SCC 512. If covered by K. Manjusree, in keeping with Tej Prakash Pathak [Salam Samarjeet Singh, (2016) 10 SCC 484 and Sivanandam, (2018) 1 SCC 239], the instant matter must either be Referred to a Larger Bench or must await the decision of […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench I Mentioned: The Rules of the Game Principle"
It is not always affordable to approach a Court of Law. Even if approached, it may be years before a final decision. Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 688 had a simple answer: “Pendency is merely a localized problem, in the sense that it affects some High Courts far more than […]Read more "The Persistent Illusion of Judge-Strength"
“In the case of Mohan Lal this Court observed, in a case where the informant and the investigator is the same, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. Varinder Kumar held, the decision in the case of Mohan Lal shall be applicable prospectively and shall not affect the cases, pending criminal […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XIV Answered Again: Mohan Lal"
“The parties clearly indicated that it was only the Court at Delhi which shall have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to any dispute and no other Court would have jurisdiction over the same. In that view of the matter, the presentation of the plaint at Gurgaon was certainly not before a Court having jurisdiction in the […]Read more "Order 7, Rule 10-A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908"
My Lord, Jurisdiction of Family Court for Application of Divorced Muslim Woman for Maintenance under Section 3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986? No. After Shah Bano, (1985) 2 SCC 556 The Muslim Women’s Protection Act, 1986 was enacted with effect from 19.05.1986 as per which a divorced Muslim woman […]Read more "Referred To Larger Bench XXIV: The Muslim Women’s Protection Act, 1986"
Gopal Prasad was appointed as Calligraphist-cum-Assistant of the Bihar School Examination Board on 20.05.1970, at about 15½ years of age. He may have been a minor, but certainly not a toddler. It is absurd that any rational employer, far less a statutory body, would appoint a toddler. The hypothesis of appointment of a toddler is […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXIII: Consequential Benefits of Gopal Prasad"
My Lord, ‘Preliminary Inquiry’, under Section 340, Mandatory for Court before ‘Complaint’, under Section 195? “In any event, given that the decision of the Three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar, (2010) 15 SCC 290 did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from a Coordinate Bench in Pritish, (2002) 1 SCC 253 and […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXII: Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry"
My Lord, Domicile/Residence-Based Reservation in Admission to PG Medical Courses within State Quota is Constitutionally Valid? In Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, [Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019] SC observed that, in Saurabh Chaudri, (2013) 11 SCC 146 the answer was affirmative; that, Saurabh Chaudri in Paragraph 31 referred to State of U.P. v. […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXI: Residence-Based Reservation / The Revival of Ray XXXIV"
Review Petition (Civil) No. 3358 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2006 Essential Religious Practices of a Religious Denomination or Section of a Religious Denomination – Constitutional Protection under Article 26? “In the Indian context, given the plurality of religions, languages, cultures and traditions, what is perceived as faith and essential practices […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XX: The Sabarimala Temple III"
“The principal issue involved in the matter is whether a Charitable Trust could maintain an action under the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The reliance was placed on Pratibha Pratisthan, (2017) 3 SCC 712 to hold that a Trust would not be a ‘person’ and consequently not a ‘consumer’. The definition of ‘person’ in terms […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XIX: Trusts Not Consumers"
“It will be noticed that ‘validity’ of an Arbitration Agreement is apart from its ‘existence’. One moot question that therefore, arises, and which needs to be authoritatively decided by a Bench of Three Learned Judges, is whether the word ‘existence’ would include weeding-out Arbitration Clauses in agreements which indicate that the subject-matter is incapable of […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XVIII: Arbitrability, The Transfer of Property Act"
My Lord, Special Leave Petition, AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER, Dismissed – Review Petition, High Court, AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER, Maintainable? “There is no conflict insofar as ratio of Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran, (1998) 7 SCC 386 and Kunhayammed, (2000) 6 SCC 359 is concerned. Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm was decided on its peculiar facts, with no discussion […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench V Answered: Maintainability of Review Petitions"
Ravjit Singh Sethi received a phone call from Mrs. Neeraj Dutta [LDC, Delhi Vidyut Board]. She demanded Rupees Fifteen Thousand which was reduced to Rupees Ten Thousand. FIR. Rupees Ten Thousand was paid. Mrs. Neeraj Dutta handed over the same to Yogesh Kumar [Driver]. Shadow Witness, S.K. Awasthi and Inspector O.D. Yadav arrived. Phenolphthalein Test. […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XVII: Illegal Gratification"
It was observed in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 833 that the words “establish and administer” in Article 30(1) must be read conjunctively and so read it gives the right to a religious minority to administer an educational institution provided it has been established by it; Article 30(1) cannot be […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XVI: Decades of Decay"
Original Scheme – Appointment on Compassionate Grounds Substituted Scheme – Ex Gratia Payment ________ State Bank of India, (2010) 11 SCC 661 + MGB Gramin Bank, (2014) 13 SCC 583 Governing Scheme: Original Scheme or Substituted Scheme? Answer/Principle: ‘Inconsistent’, ‘Irreconcilable’. Canara Bank, (2007) 9 SCC 571 ________ “Bench of Appropriate Strength.” Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XV: Gracious Compassion"
My Lord, Informant-Investigating Officer? “The principle of fair trial now informs and energizes many areas of the law. Societal interest mandates that Mohan Lal cannot be allowed to become a spring board for being catapulted to acquittal, irrespective of all other considerations. If the facts in Mohan Lal were telling with regard to the prosecution, the facts […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XIV Answered: 2 Gunny Bags of Charas"
“We find it difficult to accept the view taken in Mohan Lal. It was held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Some have maintained a distinction in that where the investigation was conducted by […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XIV: 4 Kilograms of Opium"
“Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for […]Read more "Masterly Concubinage II"
My Lord, ‘Venue’ v. ‘Seat’? The Arbitration Clause has to be appositely read to understand its intention so as to arrive at a conclusion on whether it determines the ‘seat’ or not. There is no shadow of doubt that the Arbitration Clause has to be read in a holistic manner so as to determine the […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XIII ANSWERED: Venue v. Seat, Arbitration"
Foreign Cases Cited: Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A., (1988) (1) Lloyd’s Law Reports 116. Hiscox, (1992) 1 AC 562. McDonnell Douglas Corpn., (1993) 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep. 48. C vs. D, (2007) EWCA Civ 1282 (CA). C vs. D, (2008) 1 Lloyd’s Law Rep 239. Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Limited, (2008) EWHC 426 (TCC). […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XIII: Venue v. Seat, Arbitration"