Day: October 1, 2018

Application of mind is sine qua non in an executive action to arrive at subjective satisfaction- J&K High Court

08-04-2010-The grounds of detention ex facie are vague, ambiguous and sketchy and not clear and unambiguous enable a man of common prudence to explain his stand much less make an effective representation. The detenue is not informed with clarity about his alleged “thought process”, “well knit group” at the back of the detenue and the activities that “create law and order problem”. The detenue is not informed who are the people who constitute the “well knit group” at back of the detenue, what changes were expected to be made by the detenue in his “thought process”. What are law and order and “socio-economic” problem that the detenue is likely to create and how are such problems intended to be created. The detenue is not informed about “socio economic problem” that the activities attributed to the detenue result in. The grounds of detention thus are vague, sketchy and lacking in essential details.

LAW AND ORDER SITUATION IN THE STATE

we have to bear in mind what is public order, what is law and order and the difference between the two, when it can be said that an act of an individual or public at large will result in disturbance of public order, peace, tranquility and disturbance of even tempo of life.

EXPARTE JUDGMENT AND DECREE – NECESSITY TO RECORD FINDINGS ON MERITS

Suppose a decree in question was passed by the learned Appellate Judge without analyzing the facts of the case or documents relating to title. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit in a routine manner presumably under the impression that in case the defendants are set exparte, the suit should be decreed as a matter of course without testing the bona fides of the claim made by the plaintiff.

Technical plea of constructive res judicata should not stand in the way to second proceeding

06-11-1995-According to us, it would not be just and proper to deny relief to the appellant, which is otherwise due, on the ground that earlier it had only assailed the question of exigibility to tax. It is correct that the plea now taken could have been advanced earlier as well, but the fact this was not done, should not be a ground to deny the relief which is otherwise due to the appellant. The technical plea of constructive res judicata should not stand in the way of the appellant in a case of the present nature.