100: The Bar and Bench Photography Competition, 2015

Referred to Larger Bench IV: Katju’s Eccentricity

In Common Cause v. UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 338 it was held, “A vivid reading of Para 104 of Aruna Shanbaug, (2011) 4 SCC 454 demonstrates, reasoning in Para 104 is directly inconsistent with observation in Para 101. In Paras 21 & 101 Bench was of view, Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur held, euthanasia could be made […]

Reason To Believe

“Statutes often use expressions such as “deems it necessary”, “reason to believe” et cetera. Suffice it to say, these expressions have been held not to mean: subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned. Such power given to the concerned officer is not an arbitrary power and has to be exercised in accordance with the restraints imposed […]

Principles of Natural Justice I

An administrative authority cannot dispense with the requirement of issuing notice, deciding that no prejudice will be caused to the person against whom an action is contemplated. “It is not permissible to jump over the compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice on the ground that even if hearing had been provided it would have […]

Poetic License

My Lord, What is Poetic License? “There is no authority who gives a license to a poet. These are words from the realm of literature. The poet assumes his own freedom, which is allowed to him by the fundamental concept of poetry. He is free to depart from the reality; fly away from grammar; walk […]

Promissory Estoppel I

Estoppels and Estoppels (Lord Denning). If equity is flexible enough to permit Proprietary Estoppel to be used as a cause of action, there is no reason in logic or principle why Promissory Estoppel should also not be available as a cause of action, if necessary to satisfy equity. “The law on the subject of Promissory […]

Thika Tenancy III

Before Nemai Chandra Kumar, 2015 (2) SCALE 657 there was, of course, Ramdas Bansal v. Kharag Singh Baid, (2012) 2 SCC 548 pronounced by Hon’ble Justice Altamas Kabir. Entitlement to a portion, carved out of 91, Mahatma Gandhi Road and 6, Sambhu Chatterjee Street, was in question. The two addresses in Kolkata together comprised lands on […]

Composite Negligence I

It is settled law, in a case of composite negligence, where injuries have been caused to the claimant by the combined wrongful act of joint tortfeasors, the liability is always joint and several. In Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 4244 Of 2015] it has been considered, “the claimant has the […]

Flies in the Face of Common Sense

“The expression Flies in the Face of Common Sense is taken from an interesting Judgment of the House of Lords reported in R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1995) 2 All ER 244. Lord Browne Wilkinson was faced with an argument that Section 171 of The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 vests in […]

Notice to Directors I

“The notice under Section 138 is required to be given to the ‘drawer’ of the cheque so as to give the drawer an opportunity to make the payment and escape the penal consequences. There is nothing in Section 138 which may even remotely suggest issuance of notice to anyone other than the drawer. The opportunity […]

Hon’ble Justice Shukla Kabir Sinha

“A clear example of opaqueness and bad decision was the appointment of the 59-year-old sister of a CJI to the Cal HC.” The CJI alluded to is: Hon’ble Justice Altamas Kabir; The sister: Hon’ble Justice Shukla Kabir Sinha. The symmetry is astounding. This day, 2 years ago, the following letter was sent out: Mr. Furuqan’s Letter

Primacy of Views I: The Karnataka Lokayukta Act

Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna, (2013) 3 SCC 117 held, views expressed by Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka have no ‘primacy’ in process of appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by Governor of Karnataka. High Court was of view, since Order passed by Governor of Karnataka, appointing Justice Chandrashekaraiah as an […]

An Arbitrator’s Construction of Contract

It is well settled, construction of terms of a contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide. He is entitled to take a view, which he holds to be correct one after considering material before him and after interpreting provisions of contract. Court while considering challenge to an Arbitral Award does not sit in appeal […]

Monsters-in-Law I

“If a spouse abuses the other as being born from a prostitute, this cannot be termed as ‘wear and tear’ of family life. Summoning the police on false or flimsy grounds cannot also be similarly viewed. Making it impossible for any close relatives to visit or reside in the matrimonial home would also indubitably result […]

In Re: Nick Robinson

“For a long time I’ve wanted to compile a list of films about the Indian judicial system (I must admit I’ve watched very few). If people have any such lists they would like to share in the comment section I would love to hear about them. If there is enough of a response I’ll then […]

The Plea of Limitation III: Causes of Justice I

“A series of decisions of this Court have clearly held that The Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to Courts and does not apply to Quasi-Judicial Bodies [See, (1976) 4 SCC 634]. There is authority for the proposition that even where Section 14 of The Limitation Act may not apply, the principles on which Section 14 is […]

The Dark Knight

42 answers to “Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything”. 42 years ago, on 24.04.1973, two events changed India: Birth of Sachin Tendulkar and “Pronouncement of ‘View of the Majority’ in Kesavananda“. Kesavananda Bench of 13 Judges was composed of CJ Sikri, Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. […]

The Plea of Limitation II: Article 192 of The Constitution

“Unfortunately, there is no period of limitation prescribed by law within which a person aggrieved by the decision of the Governor under Article 192 can approach the High Court. Until such law is made, we deem it appropriate to hold that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Governor under Article 192 must approach the High […]

The ‘Far Outweigh’ Standard in Recovery from Employees I

“Orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” In the following few situations, recoveries by the employers, would […]

The Plea of Limitation I: Section 9A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 9A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a State Amendment to The Code, inserted by Section 3 of The Maharashtra Act No. 65/1977. Section 9A is mandatory in nature. It mandates the Court to decide the jurisdiction of the Court before proceeding with a suit and granting interim relief by way of injunction. In Kamalakar Eknath Salunkhe v. […]

The Last Word

A Diversion for Lawyers and Others