Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra of the Allahabad High Court commenting on (Retd.) Justice Shyam Lal, in Nupur Talwar v. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2014]: “The Learned Trial Judge has prejudged things in his own fashion, drawn conclusions by embarking on erroneous analogy conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different […]Read more "The Finesse of a Trial Judge"
“In State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 790 a 3 Judge Bench of this Court held that an enactment could be struck down, if it is being challenged as violative of Article 14, only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause, equal protection clause or violative […]Read more "The Doctrine of Arbitrariness / Substantive Due Process II"
Recently in M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, [Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2017] a Bench of Justices Goel and Lalit observed the following: “There appears to be need to consider categories of cases which can be partly or entirely concluded “online” without physical presence of the parties by simplifying procedures where seriously […]Read more "Video Conferencing in Matrimonial (Cheque) Disputes II (I)"
There was a Full Court Reference at the Supreme Court on 7th August, 2012 in the memory of Late Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, Senior Advocate. It was briefly mentioned that P.S. Mishra was appointed as a Judge of the Patna High Court in 1982; was transferred to the Madras High Court in 1990; was thereafter […]Read more "The Story of Justice Prabha Shankar Mishra"
My Lord, Is the statutory period of six months prescribed under Section 13B(2) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for a motion for passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent) mandatory or directory and if directory, can the same be dispensed with, exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution? In 2 […]Read more "Section 13B of The Hindu Marriage Act III"
An Arbitrator’s appointment was argued to be bad for the reason of Item 1 of the Seventh Schedule read with Section 12(5) of The Arbitration Act that ensures if the Arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party to the Arbitration he becomes “ineligible” to […]Read more "Section 12(5) of The Arbitration Act II"
Abhinav Chandrachud, grandson to Former CJI Y.V. Chandrachud, was not incorrect in noting that the doctrine of ‘fairness’/ ‘non-arbitrariness’ laid the foundation of substantive due process in our country. Justice Nariman supports this view. In a CJI K.G. Balakrishnan Judgment in 2010, richly cited in the book, it indeed was held that the ‘standard of substantive […]Read more "The Doctrine of Arbitrariness / Substantive Due Process I"