On March 05, 2014 Hon’ble Justice Thakur, not yet the CJI, spoke of the ‘chalta hai attitude’ that often costs the society dearly in man-made tragedies [See, (2014) 6 SCC 173]. The price of Sushil Ansal’s ‘chalta hai attitude’ was pegged at Rs. 30 Crores [See, (2015) 10 SCC 359]. That is merely 18 Crores […]Read more "The Advanced Age of Sushil Ansal"
My Lord, Can grant of monetary compensation be considered as the sole and adequate remedy for a student who has been deprived of admission, despite he or she being meritorious, vigilant and diligent, because of lapses committed either by the counselling authority or the administrating authority intrinsically connected with the process of admission? “It is […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XII: Doctrine of Relation Back in Admissions"
My Lord, Is it permissible and advisable to provide statutory appeals directly to the Supreme Court, from orders of Tribunals, on issues not affecting national or public interest or other aspects of statutory framework in respect of Tribunals? “In an Article by Shri T.R. Andhyarujina former Solicitor General of India, titled ‘Restoring the Character and […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XI: Statutory Appeals to Supreme Court"
My Lord, Is the huge pendency of cases in the Supreme Court, caused by the Court not restricting its consideration, as in the case of the Apex Courts of other countries, to constitutional issues, questions of national importance, differences of opinion between different High Courts, death sentence cases and matters entrusted to the Supreme Court […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench X: Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy"
In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1965) 2 SCR 908 a Constitution Bench enacted circumstances in which a Reference to a Larger Bench would lie. It was held that in revisiting and revising its earlier decision, the SC should ask itself whether in the interest of the public good or for any other valid and […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench IX: Atiabari Tea, (1961) 1 SCR 809 and Automobile Transport, (1963) 1 SCR 491"
“Two Coordinate Benches (Three Judges)” have taken what would appear to be contrary views with regard to purport and effect and the interconnection between Section 3 and 4 of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (“Act”). The First Coordinate Bench in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., (1984) 1 SCC 467 comprised of A.N. […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench VIII: Sections 3 & 4, The Central Excise Act, 1944"
In Ranjit Narayan Haksar v. Surendra Verma, 1995 MPLJ 21 a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that an employee, retired from its service to the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, was entitled to maintain an Eviction Petition under Chapter III-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. In […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench VII: Chapter III-A, The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961"