Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court said that before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into, like whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop up.
The practice of dissent in judicial decision-making process plays a critical role in revealing constitutional commitment to deliberative democracy. Allowing judges to express differing views and engage in a dialogue about the law and its interpretation can potentially lead to a more nuanced and refined understanding of the law, as the Court grapples with competing interpretations and seeks to reconcile them in a principled manner.
The Supreme Court said that if the directions are continued, rather than avoiding man-animal conflict, it will intensify the same.
The Court observed that for determination of compensation, the Consumer Forum must examine the time value for money, an in-depth analysis of all the facts and materials surrounding factors, including uncertainties of market are to be considered.
The Revenue had submitted that the Assessing Officer is competent to consider all the material that is available on record, including that found during the search, and make an assessment of ‘total income’. While some of the High Courts agreed with the said proposition, some disagreed. The Supreme Court was, hence, called upon to resolve the conundrum.
The limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the pre-referral stage is navigated through the test of a ‘prima facie review’
The Supreme Court asserted that it was always open for the High Court to consider and examine whether the Arm’s Length Price had been determined while taking into consideration the relevant guidelines under the Act and the Rules.
The Five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in 3:2 majority approved paragraphs 22 and 29 of Garware Wall Ropes case, and to this extent, also approved Vidya Drolia case.
The Supreme Court gave huge relief to Comedian Munawar Faruqui, by clubbing all FIRs and complaints registered against him at various places.
Supreme Court observed that the High Court had the opportunity to correct the obvious errors in its order, since one part of the matter was not even considered, and the other part also lacked requisite attention to contentions.
Supreme Court has requested the Union of India along with Ministry of Power to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by the DISCOMS to the Generating Companies, which would avoid huge carrying cost to be passed over to the end consumers.
In an interview, Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Advocate and Chairman, Bar Council of India, called same-sex marriages to be against the culture
“Without the ration card a migrant/unorganized labourer or his family members may be deprived of the benefit of the schemes and may be the benefit under the National Food Security Act”, the Supreme Court observed.
The Supreme Court opined that it is unjust on the part of Haryana Utilities to say that 70% of the installed capacity should be further bifurcated and the Change in Law benefit should be restricted only to 70% of the installed capacity.
Supreme court was of the opinion that the “casual approach of APTEL, in not reasoning how such findings could be rendered, cannot be countenanced. As a judicial tribunal, dealing with contracts and bargains, which are entered into by parties with equal bargaining power, APTEL is not expected to casually render findings of coercion, or fraud, without proper pleadings or proof, or without probing into evidence.”
The Court directed to remit the matter back for fresh disposal before another bench of the High Court.
The Court stated that the “claim of the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds.”
When there is prima facie satisfaction that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, the Court cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the allegations are grave in nature.
Criticising the practice of the advocates going on strike and abstaining them from work, the Court observed that it is appropriate that their genuine grievances are considered by some forum so that such strikes can be avoided.