THE SUPREME COURT HAS STARTED A NEW TREND AFTER DELIVERING EACH OF THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS.
Judgments having Constitutional Values
West Bengal Special Courts Act (X of 1950), ss. 3, 5 Constitution of India, Art. 14–Act constituting special courts and empowering State Government to refer “cases” or “offences” or “classes of cases” or “classes of offences” to such Court–Constitutional validity–Fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws–Construction of Act–Reference to preamble–Act not classifying cases or laying down standard for classification–Intention of legislature how far material–Validity of notification under Act–Test of equality before law–Essentials of reasonable classification–Necessity for speedier trial, whether reasonable ground for discrimination.
- Kharak Singh 1964 (1) SCR 332
- RC COOPER VS UOI 1970 (3)SCR 530
- KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS STATE OF KERALA
- Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab: 1974 (2) SCC 831
- INDIRA GANDHI VS RAJ NARAIN 1976 (2) SCR 347
- Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa: 1978 (2) SCC 213
- Maneka Gandhi v. UOI: 1978 (1) see 248
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) 3 see 625
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1982 (2) SCR 365 – 3
- D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 1983 (1) SCC 305
- M C MEHETA & ANR VS UOI (1987) 1 SCR 819
- A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak: 1988 (2) SCC 602
- Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation 1989 (4) SCC 155
- Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu: 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
- Indra Sawhney v. UOI: 1992 Supp (3) see 217
- Supreme Court Advocate-on-record Association v. UOI 1993 (4) SCC 441
- S.R. Bommai v UOI: 1994 (3) SCC1 5.
- L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI: 1995 (1) SCC 400
- vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 1996 (5) SCC 647
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) SCC 416.
- People’s movements of Human Rights v. UOI 1998 (2) SCC 109
- Ms. Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India 1999 (2) SCC 228
- Mafatalal industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: 1997 (6) SCC 241
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India 2001 (7) SCC 740
- Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra: 2002 (4) SCC 388
- Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology: 2002 (5) see ‘111
- T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481: AIR 2003 SC 355
- Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158
- P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra: 2004 (8) SCC 139
- SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd.: 2005 (8) SCC 618
- M. Nagaraj v. Union Of India (2006) 8 SCC 212
- I.R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu: 2007 (2) SCC 1
- Lt. Col. Priti Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India. [ As a result of this, the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 was enacted]
- Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. UOI: 2008 (6) SCC 1 – 2 –
- Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka: 2008 (13) SCC 767.
- Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221
- Selvi v. State of Karnataka: 2010 (7) SCC 263
- State of West Bengal v. Comm. for the Protection of Democratic Rights: 2010(3) SCC 571
- Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha: 2010 (6) SCC 113.
- State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Ruparwate 2010 (7) SCC 398
- Aruna Ramachandra Shanbhaug v Union Of India (2011) 4 SCC 454
- CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: 2011 (8)SCC497
- Nandini Sundar v. State of Chattisgarh: 2011 (13) SCC 46
- Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. UOI: 2012 (2) SCALE 180
- ln re: Special Reference No.1 of 2012 2012 (10) SCC 1
- Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613
- Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v Union Of India (2012) 6 see 1
- Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 see 45.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
- Rajbala v. State of Haryana
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
- NCW vs Bhaskar Lal Sharma [(2014) 4 SCC 252]…
- Navneet Kaur vs State[(2014) 7 SCC 264]…
- Mohd Arif vs Registrar, Supreme Court [(2014) 9 SCC 737]
- Yakub A R Memon v. State of Maharashtra
- SHREYA SINGHAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA[24/03/2015] [IT ACT 2000]
- Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation Trust [December 11, 2013]
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record – Association and another versus
Union of India
The question which has arisen for consideration, in this case, pertains to the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, as also, that of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
Compensation under Public Law Remedy
This withers away the very essence of life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Regard being had to the various aspects which we have analysed and taking note of the totality of facts and circumstances, we are disposed to think that a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs (Rupees five lacs only) should be granted towards compensation to the appellant and, accordingly, we so direct. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent State within a period of six weeks and be realized from the erring officers in
equal proportions from their salary as thought appropriate by the competent authority of the State.
Judgments on Arbitration & Conciliation Act
Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and
affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.”[Kailash versus Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480] Reaffirmed.
©Advocatetanmoy Law Library