Monstrosity of Winnability II

The nation continues to wait, and is losing patience. A political party can always give a reason, a candidate with criminal antecedents is found to be more suitable than a person who does not have criminal antecedents. If the political party is of the prima facie opinion, a candidate has been falsely implicated, it can […]

Read more "Monstrosity of Winnability II"

Contempt Jurisdiction VIII

“Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, (1980) 3 SCC 47 was clarified and held in part to be obiter by a Three-Member Bench in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114. Rama Narang pointed out, distinction between two categories of cases covered by Section 2(b) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – (i) wilful disobedience to a […]

Read more "Contempt Jurisdiction VIII"

Red Herrings

Recently, Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court in Sulphur Mills Limited v. Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited, [CS(COMM) 1225/2018 & CC(COMM) 9/2019] said, to argue on basis of submissions made before Commissioner of Customs, there is no novelty or inventive step in Indian Patent Number 282429, would lead to an anomalous situation and […]

Read more "Red Herrings"

Emergency Arbitrators

Court has referred to party autonomy as being one pillar for Arbitration [Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 560; Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2016) 4 SCC 126; Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2017) 2 SCC 228; PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. […]

Read more "Emergency Arbitrators"

Last Seen Theory

We may hasten to clarify, the fact of last seen should not be weighed in isolation or be segregated from other evidence. Courts have to not only consider the factum of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances that preceded and followed. State appears to be right in relying upon State […]

Read more "Last Seen Theory"

Pardon Jurisprudence I

Constitution Bench in Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 considered the scope of Article 161 of the Constitution. Also, Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1. The power under Article 161 can be exercised by State Governments, not by Governor on his own. The prisoner, convicted on 25.3.2010, […]

Read more "Pardon Jurisprudence I"

Deliberate Falsehood

K.T.M.S. Mohammad v. Union of India, 1992 3 SCC 178; Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, 2017 1 SCC 113. _____ The present case relates to 151 K.R. Pura Legislative Assembly Constituency. We do not see any deliberate falsehood uttered, much less is there any inconsistency. Mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient […]

Read more "Deliberate Falsehood"

Expunging Observations

State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 [Also, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in A.N. Perera v. D.L.H. Perera, 1982 SCC SL SC 20]; Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N. Sarma, (1968) 1 SCR 813; A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, (1990) 2 SCC 533; Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, […]

Read more "Expunging Observations"

Seniority in Promotion / The Revival of Ray LXVIII

The principle of equality is applicable to employment at all stages and in all respects, namely, initial recruitment, promotion, retirement, payment of pension and gratuity. _____ The seniority­-cum-­merit principle is well established in service jurisprudence and does not need much discussion. Three-Judge Bench in B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu, (1998) 6 SCC 720 observed: […]

Read more "Seniority in Promotion / The Revival of Ray LXVIII"

Veil of Protest

13 March, 2015 – Members of Legislative Assembly, belonging to Party in Opposition, climbed over to Speaker’s dais and damaged furniture and articles, causing a loss of Rs. 2,20,093/-. _____ A copy of the video recording of the incident was procured from the Electronic Control Room of the Legislative Assembly. The first question to be […]

Read more "Veil of Protest"

Letter of Intent

A ‘letter of intent’ merely indicates a party’s intention to enter into a contract in future. No binding relationship between parties at this stage emerges and totality of circumstances have to be considered in each case. It is no doubt possible to construe a ‘letter of intent’ as a binding contract if such an intention […]

Read more "Letter of Intent"

Compoundable I

Analyzing decisions [Biswabahan Das v. Gopen Chandra Hazarika, AIR 1967 SC 895; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288], it is evident, legislative sanction for compounding of offences is based upon two contrasting principles: first, private parties should be allowed to settle a dispute between them at any stage (with or without […]

Read more "Compoundable I"

Original-Allottee, Subsequent-Purchaser

Ms. Madhabi Venkatraman, Original-Allottee, could not continue to wait indefinitely for delivery of Flat No. 7013 in Nectarine Tower, Parx Laurete at Section 108, Expressway, Noida. She requested transfer in favor of Respondent-Purchaser. She felt compelled to sell. It was then Respondent-Purchaser stepped in. The nature and extent of relief, to which a Subsequent-Purchaser can […]

Read more "Original-Allottee, Subsequent-Purchaser"

Cancellation of Bail

Section 389(1), CrPC allows Court to release a convicted person on bail. The factors that govern grant of suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) have been discussed by this Court in Atul Tripathi v. State of U.P., (2014) 9 SCC 177. Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366 observed, in cases involving […]

Read more "Cancellation of Bail"

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

The view, 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. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 47. _____ The proposition of law which emerges […]

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

Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 V / Supremacy of Ballot v. Authority of Police

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315 reiterates parameters laid down in celebrated decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Seven Principles enunciated in Paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal [Two-­Member Bench] are actually quoted with approval in Neeharika [Three-M­ember Bench]. Paragraph 37 of […]

Read more "Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 V / Supremacy of Ballot v. Authority of Police"