In re Kenneth Humphrey
Any lawyer practicing in court in India could attest to the fact that various people accused of various crimes, even after getting a favorable bail order are not able to exercise their liberty, the same may be originating from various reasons but mostly from the poor financial condition the accused suffers. It is further to be noted that intersectionality of various other factors along with financial unwell being might again be one of the most prominent reasons why the person ended up in Jail in the first place. Various reforms have taken place in India’s justice delivery system, to tackle the arrest at first instance as well, but the problem is very prominent. California’s Supreme Court recently took cognizance of the same, and observed that indigent people cannot be allowed to languish in jail just because they are not able to post bail, and equated such practice “pretrial detention order”.
State of Bombay v Bombay Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in a number of cases evolved various guiding principles to determine whether an undertaking is analogous to trade or business. In this landmark judgment following observations were made.
The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College vs State Of Gujarat
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on Protection of Minorities and Freedom of Religion.
A. K. Kraipak v UOI
The distinction between administrative powers and judicial powers has been diminishing over a period of time. What was considered as an administrative power some years back is now being considered as a quasi-judicial power. In this landmark judgment dealing with the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gives a test for determining whether the power is administrative or judicial?
Rampur Fertilisers v/s Vigyan Chemical Industries
Statutory provisions are made for payment of interest to compensate a party that had suffered damages owing to a positive action or inaction of others resulting in blockade of money, which he/ she would otherwise have received.
Further, in the following landmark judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court makes certain observations in regards to payment of Interest.
Ethiopian Airlines vs Ganesh Narain Saboo
It is to be noted that before Consumer Redressal Fora, only provisions which have been explicitly incorporate from CPC can be invoked. expressio unius est exclusio alterius is legal maxim applicable in present case.
State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni
For an employer-employee relationship to exist, it is required that there exists an employer, employee, and a contract of employment. In this landmark judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court lists several factors that must be taken into consideration for the test of the employer-employee relationship.
Binoy Visman v Union of India
Article 14 is fons juris of the Constitution, and the fountainhead of justice. It must be noted though, that differential treatment per se do not amount to violation of Article 14, it is necessary that differential treatment is based on NO reasonable basis.
Virender Nath Gautam vs Satpal Singh
Distinguishing between ‘material facts’ and ‘particular’ in regards with Civil Petition, and more specifically in regards with election disputes, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations:
Nar Singh Pal v Union of India
Can a person waive off any of his fundamental rights?
Fundamental rights as guaranteed by the constitution were made, not only to benefit individuals but also to secure the interest of the community at large. Further, it is also a possibility wherein for a promise of transitory and immediate benefits, individuals could be lured into (worst forced to) forgo their precious personal freedoms.
Although it is to be noted that in the USA, one can waive one’s fundamental rights.
Ghostline Legal