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"