Advocate, adviser and educator
Shibdas Ghosh [1923-1976] Date : March 18, 1969 First published: September 1971 SUMMARY: It is not at all possible for the original undivided Communist Party of India to lead a complex struggle […]
A mere misconstruction of a provision of law does not render the decision of a quasi-judicial tribunal void (as being beyond its jurisdiction). It is a good and valid decision in law until and unless it is corrected in the appropriate manner. So long as that decision stands, despite its being erroneous, it must be regarding as one authorised by law and where, under such a decision a person is held liable to pay a tax that person cannot treat the decision as a nullity and contend that what is demanded of him is something which is not authorised by law. The position would be the same even though upon a proper construction, the law under which the decision was given did not authorise such a levy.
It is well-settled that the powers of this Court to issue writs of certiorari under Art. 32(2) as well as the powers of the High Courts to issue similar writs under Art. […]
(1) These Guidelines shall be called the Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines 2014. (2) They shall come into force with effect from…… 2. APPLICATION: (1) These Guidelines shall apply to all Government […]
(1967) AIR(Bombay) 96 : (1966) 68 BomLR 321 : (1967) CriLJ 427 : (1966) ILR(Bombay) 839 BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIVISION BENCH ( Before : Palekar, J; Naik, J ) GAJANAN VISHWANATH KETKAR […]
“Public Order” is synonymous with public safety and tranquillity : it is the absence of disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradistinction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war affecting the security of the State; (2) there must be proximate and reasonable nexus between the speech and the public order; (3) Section 3, as it now stands, does not establish in most of the cases comprehended by it any such nexus; (4) there is a conflict of decision on the question of severability in the context of an offending provision the language whereof is wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislation; one view is that it cannot be split up if there is possibility of its being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution and the other view is that such a provision is valid if it is severable in its application to an object which is clearly demarcated from other object or objects falling outside the limits of constitutionally permissible legislation; and (5) the provisions of the section are so inextricably mixed up that it is not possible to apply the doctrine of severability so as to enable us to affirm the validity of a part of it and reject the rest.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIVISION BENCH ( Before : Palekar, J; Naik, J ) ANANT JANARDHAN KARANDIKAR — Appellant Vs. STATE — Respondent Decided on : 02-08-1965 Constitution of India, 1950 – Article […]
Edition: May 2019 [22nd July 1902] 1902 CHAPTER 8 2 Edw 7 An Act for the regulation of the burning of Human Remains, and to enable Burial Authorities to establish Crematoria. BE […]
An article has to be read in its entirety and an isolated passage cannot be read out of context. The Court is cast with a duty to decide what impression the article […]
The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court or even the Supreme Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry u/s 202 which culminates into an order u/s 204.
Supreme Court withdrew protection given to Mr. Rajeev Kumar, former Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, vide order dated February 05, 2019 restraining the CBI from arresting him and thereby
The relief sought by the respondent-writ petitioner is as follows: It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why; […]
Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, and Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, held.. In Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), the scope of Section 227 […]
Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconstruction. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality ot decision legally and properly made Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage ot justice Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ( Before : P. Sathasivam, J; Anil R. Dave, J ) SAJJAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent Criminal Appeal No. … […]
DDA is acting unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, even in contractual matters, appropriate relief can be granted. Judicial pronouncements on the issues as to when in contractual matters involving the state or its instrumentality writ interference can be resorted : Delhi High Court
A case where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief – The rights course of the High Court to follow was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case.
The word “workman” is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms “establishment” and “workman” shows that a workman engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The circumstances under which contract labour could be treated as direct workman of the principal employer have already been pointed out above.
