{"id":236708,"date":"2020-10-04T09:30:01","date_gmt":"2020-10-04T04:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=236708"},"modified":"2020-10-03T13:48:31","modified_gmt":"2020-10-03T08:18:31","slug":"2020-scc-vol-5-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 141 \u2014 Unanimous decisions versus split decisions \u2014 Precedential value:<\/strong> There is no difference in precedential value of unanimous decisions and those rendered by majority in split decisions. Prayer to commute death sentence on ground that death sentence in appeal was not unanimously approved but was approved by a 2:1 split decision, rejected. The contention that death ought not to be awarded in case of a single dissent notwithstanding opinion of majority is not supported by precedents. [Manoharan v. State, (2020) 5 SCC 782<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 145(3) \u2014 Substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution:<\/strong> Questions of law formulated by two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in para 14 of its order in Subhash Chandra Agrawal<\/em>, (2011) 1 SCC 496, referred to Constitution Bench of Supreme Court, as earlier directed by the two-Judge Bench on 26-11-2010. [Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 674<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 226 \u2014 Maintainability \u2014 Delay\/Laches:<\/strong> In this case, petitioners were challenging appointments made during years 2001 and 2003 only in the years 2012 and 2013 after they becoming qualified in year 2011. It was held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief on ground of unexplained laches and inordinate delay of about more than 10 yrs in challenging appointments. Besides, though relief was claimed against State, benefit of regularisation was sought to be denied to appointed Teachers, who were not even impleaded as party respondents (Association impleaded as third respondent without furnishing any material to show that majority of appointees were members of said Association). [Chander Mohan Negi v. State of H.P., (2020) 5 SCC 732<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 19(1)(a) & (2), 19(1)(g) & (6) and Art. 21 \u2014 Curtailment of fundamental rights (due to restriction on internet services in Jammu and Kashmir herein) \u2014 For reasons of national security (due to crossborder terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir):<\/strong> Fundamental rights, reiterated, need to be balanced with national security concerns, in line with the constitutional principles, when situation so demands. [Foundation for Media Professionals v. State (UT of J&K), (2020) 5 SCC 746<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Consumer Protection \u2014 Services \u2014 Banking\/Shares\/Securities and other Financial Services:<\/strong> Under-insurance by bank i.e. non-insuring of whole of the hypothecated assets of the borrower by the bank, amounted to deficiency of service, when the bank contractually bound to do so. Obtaining of insurance of only some of such assets by bank is not permissible when the bank exercises the option to itself insure the goods. [Canara Bank v. Leatheroid Plastics (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 722<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 \u2014 Ss. 13(2)(a) and 13(2)(b)(ii) r\/w Ss. 13(3), 13(3-A), 13(4), 14 and 24-A:<\/strong> Limitation period for filing reply\/response to the complaint by the respondent\/opposite party, mandatorily cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period of 45 days (i.e. period of 30 days along with discretionary extension of time up to 15 days). [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Education Law \u2014 Employment and Service Matters Re Educational Institutions \u2014 Officers\/Authorities\/Staff, Faculty, etc. \u2014 Teachers\/Part-time Teachers\/Lecturers \u2014 Assistant Director in Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE):<\/strong> In this case, appellant was appointed in CACEE w.e.f. 26-12-1989 which received sanction of University vide letter dt. 1-2-1990. CACEE was established on temporary basis for purpose of eradicating illiteracy. Posts in CACEE were not included in schedule to the University First Ordinances, 1978 which indicating that posts in Centre were not posts in University. Further, for a person to be \u201cTeacher\u201d in terms of S. 2(27) of 1974 Rules, he\/she should be imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges of recognized institutions.\u201cCollege\u201d in terms of S. 2(7) means an institution maintained by or affiliated to University while \u201crecognised institution\u201d as envisaged under S. 2(19) means institution for research or special studies other than affiliated college, recognised as such by University. Centre not a \u201ccollege\u201d since it is neither maintained nor affiliated to University, nor any evidence produced to establish that it was an institution recognised by University within meaning of S. 2(19). The Supreme Court in this case held that when appellant does not fulfil requirement of \u201cTeacher\u201d, he cannot claim applicability of Statute 10 of Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and claim to retire at 60 yrs of age. Further held, even assuming that appellant was imparting instruction in different courses in the Centre, that cannot make him \u201cTeacher\u201d within meaning of Ss. 2(27) and (28). Furthermore, Government Letter dt. 3-10-2014 merging Centre with Institute of Distance Education also supports conclusion that Centre was not maintained by University but was self-financing centre. [P. Gopinathan Pillai v. University of Kerala, (2020) 5 SCC 711<\/a>]<\/p>\n

GST \u2014 Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 \u2014 Ss. 67(8) and 67(6) \u2014 Search and seizure \u2014 Release of seized goods \u2014 Procedure to be followed:<\/strong> The directions for release of seized goods by extricating the assessees from paying the applicable tax amount in cash, in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court, not valid, when mechanism already provided for in the Act and the Rules for release. [State of U.P. v. Kay Pan Fragrance (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 811<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 S. 166 \u2014 Contributory negligence \u2014 If any \u2014 Determination of:<\/strong> In this case, deceased victim on two-wheeler at night dashed into truck trailer parked on road without any reflectors. The Supreme Court held that once substantive evidence of eyewitness before MACT established that truck trailer had been parked on road at night without any reflectors, there was no reason or justification for MACT to proceed on basis of conjecture in arriving at a finding of contributory negligence. The High Court had not discussed this at all and simply proceeded to confirm finding of contributory negligence. Consequently, it was held, there was no contributory negligence. [Jumani Begam v. Ram Narayan, (2020) 5 SCC 807<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 302\/34 \u2014 Murder in furtherance of common intention: <\/strong>In this case of collective assault resulted in death of one due to stabbing, there was involvement of 4 accused persons (including 3 appellant-accused herein). Prior meeting of minds of all accused, was established and all 3 appellants were found having intention common with that of fourth accused, who inflicted multiple injuries on deceased with knife. There were sufficient materials available, to establish that all appellants returned together to place of occurrence and attacked deceased victim. Eyewitnesses gave uniform account of assault on deceased and no major contradiction or discrepancy in their statements in course of their examination, was made out. Delay in filing FIR, was also properly explained. It was held that although eyewitnesses were known to deceased, and there was no neutral witness, but for that factor alone, appellants cannot be exonerated. Hence, conviction of appellants under Ss. 302\/34, and sentence of life imprisonment with fine and default stipulation, was confirmed. [Dhanpal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 705<\/a>]<\/p>\n

\n

Service Law \u2014 Departmental Enquiry \u2014 De novo\/Fresh enquiry \u2014 When envisaged \u2014 Violation of principles of natural justice:<\/strong> In this case there were allegations pertaining to appointment of more than 500 Asstt. Teachers in Basic Schools in State of U.P. in violation of 1981 Rules. The High Court by impugned judgment set aside dismissal order and remitted matter to disciplinary authority to hold enquiry afresh from stage of charge-sheet finding that enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that serious allegations of corruption raised against respondent State require determination in full-fledged enquiry by disciplinary authority. [Ramesh Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 5 SCC 677<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Pension \u2014 Pension Scheme \u2014 General Provident Fundcum- pension-cum-gratuity benefit (Triple Benefit Scheme) \u2014 Extension of benefit to employees of deficit colleges vide amendment dt. 15-1-2014 \u2014 Prescription of cut-off date of 31-8-2010: <\/strong>In this case, in absence of arbitrariness in applicability of cut-off date as well as rationality behind it based on date of Cabinet decision granting Triple Benefit Scheme to such deficit grant colleges no interference with impugned judgment denying benefit of said Scheme to appellants who retired before 31-8-2010 is called for. [Mohd. Ali Imam v. State of Bihar, (2020) 5 SCC 685<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Retirement\/Superannuation \u2014 Voluntary retirement \u2014 Retiral benefits:<\/strong> In this case, the application dt. 28-7-2005 seeking voluntary retirement was not considered and subsequent resignation dt. 3-5-2006 was accepted. While considering the claim to retiral benefits, the Supreme Court held that though respondent\u2019s husband was qualified to appear for voluntary retirement in terms of R. 50(2) of the Pension Rules, 1996, required its acceptance by appointing authority. Besides, when respondent\u2019s husband submitted application for voluntary retirement he was already issued two charge-sheets alleging misconduct and pending disciplinary proceedings he had no absolute right seeking acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement since employer keen on proceeding with inquiry would be entitled not to consider the application. Moreover, proceeding pertaining to charge-sheet culminated in final order dt. 3-9-2005 whereunder punishment of withholding of increment was imposed. Thus, non-consideration of application for voluntary retirement was justified. Furthermore, on acceptance of respondent\u2019s husband application for resignation he was relieved on 31-5-2006 and terminal benefits were paid, which he accepted and no dispute pertaining to same was raised during his lifetime. Impugned judgment directing payment of retiral benefits in writ petition filed belatedly in the year 2012 holding subsequent resignation dt. 3-5-2006 be considered as application for voluntary retirement, was held unsustainable and liable to be set aside. [Rajasthan SRTC v. Mohani Devi, (2020) 5 SCC 741<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Seniority \u2014 Determination of seniority \u2014 Direct recruits vis-\u00e0-vis promotees \u2014 Inter se seniority \u2014 Rota-quota principle: <\/strong>In this case it was held that though N.R. Parmar<\/em>, (2012) 13 SCC 340<\/a>, purportedly interpreted Central Government OMs dt. 7-2-1986 and 3-7-1986 yet in effect it misconstrued them, and for this reason, it did not properly consider the purport of subsequent clarificatory OM dt. 3-3-2008. General principle of law, further held, is that a direct recruit cannot get backdated notional seniority earlier than he joined service. N.R. Parmar case<\/em>, insofar as it confers backdated seniority with reference to initiation of recruitment process, is not sustainable in law. N.R.<\/em> Parmar case <\/em>overruled and Jagdish Ch. Patnaik<\/em>, (1998) 4 SCC 456<\/a> affirmed on this point.\u00a0 However, inter se seniority where already fixed by applying N.R.<\/em> Parmar case <\/em>and the Central Government OM dated 4-3-2014 based thereon, protected. [K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, (2020) 5 SCC 689<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 141 \u2014 Unanimous decisions versus split decisions \u2014 Precedential value: There is no difference in precedential value <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":182154,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[4751,26884,11411],"class_list":["post-236708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-scc","tag-cases-reported","tag-supreme-court-cases"],"yoast_head":"\n2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 141 \u2014 Unanimous decisions versus split decisions \u2014 Precedential value: There is no difference in precedential value\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-10-04T04:00:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/\",\"name\":\"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-10-04T04:00:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4","og_description":"Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 141 \u2014 Unanimous decisions versus split decisions \u2014 Precedential value: There is no difference in precedential value","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-10-04T04:00:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/","name":"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","datePublished":"2020-10-04T04:00:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/04\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-4\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 4"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":292841,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/24\/the-precedential-value-of-the-split-verdict-in-rathi-steels\/","url_meta":{"origin":236708,"position":0},"title":"The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels","author":"Editor","date":"May 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"rathi steels","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/rathi-steels.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":274033,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/20\/binding-nature-judgment-depends-on-bench-strength-not-number-of-judges-taking-majority-view-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news-constitution-bench\/","url_meta":{"origin":236708,"position":1},"title":"SC Constitution Bench| Binding nature of a judgment depends on the Bench Strength and not the numerical strength of the Judges taking majority view","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Explaining the doctrine of precedents, the 5-judge Constitution Bench of Indira Banerjee*, Hemant Gupta*, Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ has held that the numerical strength of the Judges taking a particular view is not relevant, but the Bench strength is determinative of the binding nature\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Binding-nature-of-a-judgment-depends-on-the-Bench-Strength-and-not-the-numerical-strength-of-the-Judges-taking-majority-view-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Binding-nature-of-a-judgment-depends-on-the-Bench-Strength-and-not-the-numerical-strength-of-the-Judges-taking-majority-view-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Binding-nature-of-a-judgment-depends-on-the-Bench-Strength-and-not-the-numerical-strength-of-the-Judges-taking-majority-view-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Binding-nature-of-a-judgment-depends-on-the-Bench-Strength-and-not-the-numerical-strength-of-the-Judges-taking-majority-view-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Binding-nature-of-a-judgment-depends-on-the-Bench-Strength-and-not-the-numerical-strength-of-the-Judges-taking-majority-view-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243298,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/03\/cal-hc-adjudicate-or-legislate-what-is-the-role-of-courts-in-our-country-hc-frames-a-precedential-examination-while-discussing-scope-of-judicial-inquiry\/","url_meta":{"origin":236708,"position":2},"title":"Cal HC | Adjudicate or Legislate? What is the role of Courts in our country? HC frames a precedential examination while discussing scope of \u2018Judicial Inquiry\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J., in the instant matter after a precedential examination with regard to judicial inquiry, laid down a few principles for the same. Petitioners sought command towards Secretary of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission \u2013 Respondent 4 to allow petitioners to add their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":241395,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-scc-vol-8-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":236708,"position":3},"title":"2020 SCC Vol. 8 Part 1","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 28, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Procedural and Evidentiary liberties under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act: An application under Section 34 is meant only for examining the legality and\/or enforceability of an award. But award-debtors, having lost in the arbitration, started treating the Section 34 application like an original suit. However, since the last few\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":253074,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/21\/2021-scc-vol-5-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":236708,"position":4},"title":"2021 SCC Vol. 5 Part 1","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 21, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"2021 SCC Vol. 5 Part 1 In this part read a very interesting decision delivered by the Supreme Court running into over 465 Pages which has been expertly analysed by our editors. While upholding the validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, albeit with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289020,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/10\/2023-scc-vol-3-part-4\/","url_meta":{"origin":236708,"position":5},"title":"2023 SCC Vol. 3 Part 4","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 S. 36 \u2014 Enforcement\/Execution of arbitration award \u2014 Speed\/Expedition: Necessity of speed\/expedition in enforcement\/execution of arbitration award, emphasized. [Chopra Fabricators & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 534] Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 19(1)(g), 19(6), 26 and 30\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/IMG_20230409_215550_083.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/IMG_20230409_215550_083.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/IMG_20230409_215550_083.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/IMG_20230409_215550_083.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=236708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236708\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/182154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}