A Review of “Legal Eagles”

“There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.” Legal Eagles traces the journey of […]

Read more "A Review of “Legal Eagles”"

The Doctrine of Mutuality I

My Lord, What is the Doctrine of Mutuality? “The said Doctrine is predicated on the principle enunciated in Styles v. New York Life Insurance Company, (1889) 2 TC 460, 471 (HL) by Lord Watson in the following words: “When a number of individuals agree to contribute funds for a common purpose, such as the payment […]

Read more "The Doctrine of Mutuality I"

Section 499, Indian Penal Code II

I am an Advocate, not an Academician. The practical impact of a Judgment interests me. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 184 of 2014] pronounced recently, is a significant weapon in my hand. Explanation 1 to Section 499 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as, “It may amount to defamation to […]

Read more "Section 499, Indian Penal Code II"

Able Disable All People Together I

“Since the inception of mankind, many lacs have suffered from different types of physical handicaps (today about 600 million people suffer from such handicaps). But, many of them overcame all kinds of handicaps and achieved distinctions in various fields. Sarah Bernhardt – French actress was disabled by a knee injury. Her leg was amputated in […]

Read more "Able Disable All People Together I"

Promissory Estoppel IV

“The entire basis of this Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel has been well put in a Judgment of Australian High Court reported in Commonwealth of Australia v. Verwayen, 170 C.L.R. 394, by Deane, J. The statement, based on various earlier English authorities, correctly encapsulates the law of Promissory Estoppel with one difference under our law – […]

Read more "Promissory Estoppel IV"

Reasonable Restriction I

“Under Article 19(6) of The Constitution, the State has to conform to two separate and independent tests if it is to pass constitutional muster – the restriction on the fundamental right must first be a reasonable restriction, and secondly, it should also be in the interest of the general public. Perhaps the best exposition of […]

Read more "Reasonable Restriction I"

Referred to Larger Bench IX: Atiabari Tea, (1961) 1 SCR 809 and Automobile Transport, (1963) 1 SCR 491

In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1965) 2 SCR 908 a Constitution Bench enacted circumstances in which a Reference to a Larger Bench would lie. It was held, in revisiting and revising its earlier decision, SC should ask itself whether in the interest of the public good or for any other valid and compulsive reasons, […]

Read more "Referred to Larger Bench IX: Atiabari Tea, (1961) 1 SCR 809 and Automobile Transport, (1963) 1 SCR 491"

Look, T.M.A. Pai Again

Any attempt at interpretation of a long line of cases proves to be tiresome. Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009], delivered on 02.05.2016, provides a brave summary. Accept it with abundant caution. 5 Judges have no jurisdiction to interpret 7 or 11 erstwhile Lords. The […]

Read more "Look, T.M.A. Pai Again"

Dispute on Matrimonial Status

“Under Section 7(1), Explanation (b) of The Family Courts Act, 1984 (“Act”) a suit or a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, since under Section 8 all those jurisdictions covered under Section 7 are excluded […]

Read more "Dispute on Matrimonial Status"

75 LAKHS FOR NALSA

One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of Court is re-litigation. It is contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. Recently, Messer Holdings Ltd. v. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) 33429 of […]

Read more "75 LAKHS FOR NALSA"

Knickeratti

Truth be told, both Chetan Bhagat [@chetan_bhagat] and Dushyant Arora [@atti_cus] wrote boring posts – nothing I have not read before. Chetan wrote first. He used that advantage. It is not appropriate for a National-Figure to berate an Upcoming Lawyer. Some of us, including Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, were concerned. At the Near Stroke of Midnight: Thus, […]

Read more "Knickeratti"

Referred to Larger Bench VIII: Sections 3 & 4, The Central Excise Act, 1944

“Two Coordinate Benches (Three Judges)” have taken what would appear to be contrary views with regard to purport and effect and the interconnection between Section 3 and 4 of The Central Excise Act, 1944. The First Coordinate Bench in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., (1984) 1 SCC 467 comprised of Hon’ble Judges […]

Read more "Referred to Larger Bench VIII: Sections 3 & 4, The Central Excise Act, 1944"