The Rules of The Game Principle IV

The number of candidates was not quite large. 4270 in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit, (2003) 12 SCC 70. 51524 and 5748 in preliminary and main examinations respectively in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, (2007) 3 SCC 720. 3000 in Mahinder Kumar v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) […]

Read more "The Rules of The Game Principle IV"

Compassionate Appointment IV

Learned Senior Counsel made a request to wait for a decision. “We do not consider it necessary to do so.” Only after Reference to Larger Bench in State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600 this Court decided Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729; N.C. Santhosh v. State of […]

Read more "Compassionate Appointment IV"

The Rules of The Game Principle III

As was subtly recognized, State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220, unnoticed in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer, Durgacharan Misra, Umesh Chandra Shukla, Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and K. Manjusree, carries instructions on the Tej Prakash Pathak issue. Subash Chander Marwaha is crucial to understand the time when the ‘process of ascertaining eligibility’, before […]

Read more "The Rules of The Game Principle III"

Referred to Larger Bench XII Answered: Doctrine of Relation Back in Admissions

The view, the only relief which can be granted would be compensation only [Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521], is not good law and cannot be accepted. – Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah [Three-Judge Bench], S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 47. _____ The proposition of law […]

Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XII Answered: Doctrine of Relation Back in Admissions"

Intersectionality

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"

Illegal Gratification II

Hakeem Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 5 SCC 719 considered powers of Appellate Court for interference in cases where acquittal is recorded by Trial Court. It was held, so long as the view of Trial Court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether High Court agrees with the same or not, verdict of […]

Read more "Illegal Gratification II"

Referred to Larger Bench XXV: Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement

It is well settled, an Arbitration Agreement is distinct and separate; independent from the substantive commercial contract in which it is embedded. The autonomy of the Arbitration Agreement is based on the twin concepts of separability and kompetenz – kompetenz; which, though inter-related, are distinct. The Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement connotes, the invalidity, […]

Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXV: Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement"

Referred to Larger Bench XVIII Answered: Arbitrability, The Transfer of Property Act

We overrule the ratio laid down in Himangni Enterprises, (2017) 10 SCC 706 and hold, landlord-tenant disputes are Arbitrable as The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not forbid or foreclose Arbitration. However, landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by Rent Control Legislation would not be Arbitrable when specific Court or Forum has been given exclusive […]

Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XVIII Answered: Arbitrability, The Transfer of Property Act"

The Revival of Ray XLVI

In State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 656 it was considered, when a definition clause in a provision is under-inclusive and over-inclusive. Mr. Justice Holmes, in urging tolerance of under-inclusive classifications, stated that such legislation should not be disturbed by the Court unless there is clearly no fair reason for […]

Read more "The Revival of Ray XLVI"

The Plea of Limitation XII: Written Statements, District Consumer Forums II

“By specifically enacting a provision under Sub­-Section (3) of Section 13, with a specific clarification that violation of the principles of natural justice shall not be called in question where the procedure prescribed under Sub-­Sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been followed or complied with, the intention […]

Read more "The Plea of Limitation XII: Written Statements, District Consumer Forums II"