{"id":324489,"date":"2024-06-16T11:00:14","date_gmt":"2024-06-16T05:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=324489"},"modified":"2024-06-16T12:06:11","modified_gmt":"2024-06-16T06:36:11","slug":"sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder\u2019s wrong name in a form\u2019s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith [(1953) 1 SCC 600]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed against the judgment dated 29-05-1950, passed by the Bombay High Court (‘the High Court’), the three-judges bench of M.C. Mahajan, Vivian Bose*<\/span> and B. Jagannadhadas, JJ., stated that apparent that the clerks in charge were careless, for the delivery order of 12-04-1947, as Bholabhai Jagjiwandas was showed as the Commission Agent while the signature at the bottom showed that Shantilal and Company actually accepted and received the goods, whereas other delivery orders of the same consignment correctly entered the name of Shantilal and Company. The Supreme Court opined that quite clearly, this was innocent carelessness, because if there had been any dishonesty involved either Shantilal or Bholabhai would have been entered in all the orders and if the name of Bholabhai was entered, care would have been taken to forge a signature on behalf of Bholabhai.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that merely because a mistake had occurred, it could not lead to an inference of bad faith and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the present case, two appeals were filed from the convictions under the Essential Supplies Act, 1946, and since they involved the same subject matter, they were taken up together for adjudication.<\/p>\n

Shree Kishan and Company was the quota-holder, and the two returns were made to the Textile Commissioner, one for 25 bales of the April, delivery on 12-05-1947 and the other for 13 bales of the May, delivery on 14-6-1947. The name of the quota-holder was rightly entered but in the delivery column of the printed form the names of Bholabhai Jagjiwandas and Champaklal Hiralal were wrongly entered, as the right party was S. Shantilal and Company.<\/p>\n

The mistake was discovered in October and on 03-10-1947 the manager of the Appellant 1 pointed out the mistake to the Textile Commissioner and sent a correction slip and asked that the original returns to be amended. The prosecution stated that the mistake was not accidental but deliberate. The Presidency Magistrate convicted and sentenced the Appellant 1-Seksaria Cotton Mills Limited to a fine of Rs 10,000 on each count and the Appellant 2-the Managing Director, to two months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000 on each count. The High Court upheld the convictions and the sentence of fine on the first appellant but in the case of the second appellant, it set aside the sentence of imprisonment and reduced the fine to Rs 10,000 on each count. Therefore, the present appeal was filed by the appellant to set aside the conviction and sentence.<\/p>\n

Appellant-1’s General Manager was also prosecuted and was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 4,000 on each count. This was upheld on appeal to the High Court. Thus, he had also filed the second appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court stated that the High Court had proceeded on the assumption that the prosecution must prove that the inaccuracies were not innocent but that they were made with a guilty mind. Therefore, the only question before the Supreme Court was whether mens rea<\/span> was proved and whether all reasonable likelihood of innocent mistakes were excluded.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court stated that this case was like Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd.<\/span> v. State of Bombay<\/span>, (1953) 1 SCC 561<\/a>, (‘Seksaria Cotton Mills case’)<\/span> wherein the purchaser Shree Kishan and Company changed its local agent. Originally, it had appointed the two agents, namely, Bholabhai Jagjiwandas and Champaklal Hiralal, but on 25-3-1947 it changed its local agent to S. Shantilal and Company. The only difference between the present case and Seksaria Cotton Mills case (supra)<\/span> was that in the present case the goods were delivered to the proper persons, namely, S. Shantilal & Company, and were accepted by them. There was no tender to the original agents.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court stated that Bholabhai Jagjiwandas and Champaklal had a very definite connection with Shree Kishan and Company and up to a certain date, they were the proper agents for accepting delivery. Further, a letter dated 25-3-1947 showed that there was a change of agents. However, it was also apparent that the clerks in charge were careless, for the delivery order of 12-04-1947, as it showed Bholabhai Jagjiwandas as the Commission Agent while the signature at the bottom showed that Shantilal and Company actually accepted and received the goods, whereas other delivery orders of the same consignment correctly enter the name of Shantilal and Company.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that quite clearly, this was innocent carelessness, because if there had been any dishonesty involved either Shantilal or Bholabhai would have been entered in all the orders and if the name of Bholabhai was entered, care would have been taken to forge a signature on behalf of Bholabhai. The Supreme Court stated that “the assumption that innocent mistakes cannot be made even by responsible persons betrays to our mind a want of experience of the world and of the actual conduct of business affairs particularly in the business world<\/span>.” It was not that the businessmen were the only offenders, as the government offices and officers were also no exception to this rule.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that mere fact that a mistake had occurred, could not lead to an inference of bad faith. The burden was on the prosecution, therefore, if the prosecution felt the clerk should show that the mistake was not innocent, it was for them to call the clerk. This was not a civil case where the burden of proof could shift from stage to stage. Further, regarding the mistake about delivery of five bales to Parekh Dyeing and Printing Works, it was evident that this firm received bales of cloth for printing in the ordinary course of its business and the mere fact that five bales were wrongly received due to a mistake which was corrected soon after was not sufficient to justify an inference of bad faith.<\/p>\n

Thus, considering the facts of the case with burden on the prosecution, the Supreme Court opined that the conclusion reached was not of a prudent man and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants. The Supreme Court stated that if the fines were paid, it would be refunded.<\/p>\n

[Seksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay, (1953) 1 SCC 600<\/a>, decided on 30-03-1953<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Note: Essentiality of mens rea<\/span><\/p>\n

Mens rea<\/span> is a latin term, which means guilty mind. The Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea<\/span>’, which means the act does not make the person guilty unless the mind is also guilty, expresses the essential concept of mens rea<\/span>. It recognizes that for an individual to be held criminally responsible, they must have intended to commit the illegal act or had an awareness regarding the consequences of their actions. It requires a subjective assessment of the mental state of the accused, exploring factors such as intention, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence.<\/p>\n

In Indian law several legal provisions emphasize its significance. Section 299<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’) defines culpable homicide as causing death with the intention of causing death, or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Section 300<\/a> of IPC<\/a> states that murder includes acts done with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that such acts are likely to cause death. Further, Section 304-A<\/a> of IPC<\/a> deals with causing death by negligence, highlighting the importance of mens rea<\/span> by specifying that the act must be done with a rash or negligent state of mind.<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice Vivian Bose<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellants:<\/span> M.P. Amin, Senior Advocate (R.J. Kolah, Advocate, with him), A.K. Muthuswami Iyer, Advocate;<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (Porus A. Mehta, Advocate, with him).<\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on essentiality of mens rea.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":324499,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[56325,69880,69879,29904,48544,58925,69881,5363],"class_list":["post-324489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-bad-faith","tag-essentiality-of-mens-rea","tag-innocent-carelessness","tag-mens-rea","tag-mistake","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-quota-holder","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on essentiality of mens rea| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that mere fact that a mistake had occurred, could not lead to an inference of bad faith and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants.\" \/>\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\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder\u2019s wrong name in a form\u2019s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith [(1953) 1 SCC 600]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that mere fact that a mistake had occurred, could not lead to an inference of bad faith and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-06-16T05:30:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-06-16T06:36:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder\u2019s wrong name in a form\u2019s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith [(1953) 1 SCC 600]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 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\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on essentiality of mens rea| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-16T05:30:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-06-16T06:36:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court opined that mere fact that a mistake had occurred, could not lead to an inference of bad faith and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"mens rea bad faith\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder\u2019s wrong name in a form\u2019s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith [(1953) 1 SCC 600]\"}]},{\"@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\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on essentiality of mens rea| SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court opined that mere fact that a mistake had occurred, could not lead to an inference of bad faith and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants.","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\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder\u2019s wrong name in a form\u2019s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith [(1953) 1 SCC 600]","og_description":"Supreme Court opined that mere fact that a mistake had occurred, could not lead to an inference of bad faith and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-06-16T05:30:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-06-16T06:36:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder\u2019s wrong name in a form\u2019s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith [(1953) 1 SCC 600]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/","name":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on essentiality of mens rea| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp","datePublished":"2024-06-16T05:30:14+00:00","dateModified":"2024-06-16T06:36:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Supreme Court opined that mere fact that a mistake had occurred, could not lead to an inference of bad faith and accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"mens rea bad faith"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder\u2019s wrong name in a form\u2019s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith [(1953) 1 SCC 600]"}]},{"@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\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":253461,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/31\/sebi-6\/","url_meta":{"origin":324489,"position":0},"title":"SEBI | Unambiguous Supreme Court, Univocal SEBI | Believes and balked, mens rea to shudder provisions of Chapter VI A- If imputes would impede","author":"Editor","date":"August 31, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Prasanta Mahapatra, Adjudicating Officer, while imposing a penalty of \u00a0\u20b96,00,000\/- on Capital First Ltd. (Noticee), and being in consonance with the Supreme Court, held, mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty under Chapter VI A of the SEBI Act as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":291215,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/03\/supreme-court-collegium-recommends-justice-robin-phukan-for-appointment-as-permanent-judge-of-gauhati-hc-and-3-advocates-for-appointment-as-judges-of-bombay-hc-legal-research-l\/","url_meta":{"origin":324489,"position":1},"title":"SC collegium recommends Justice Robin Phukan’s appointment as Gauhati HC’s permanent Judge; 3 Advocates, including 1 flagged by IB, for appointment as Bombay HC Judges","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The two Supreme Court collegium resolutions were passed on 02-05-2023.","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"appointment of judges","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/appointment-of-judges.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/appointment-of-judges.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/appointment-of-judges.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/appointment-of-judges.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298039,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/30\/supplier-cannot-treat-non-payment-of-goods-as-ground-for-non-delivery-of-balance-goods-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":324489,"position":2},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | When contract is not for delivery of goods in installments, supplier cannot treat non-payment of goods as ground for non-delivery of balance goods [1951 SCC 267]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on breach of contract.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"breach of contract","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/breach-of-contract.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/breach-of-contract.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/breach-of-contract.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/breach-of-contract.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290246,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/21\/supreme-court-mens-rea-not-an-essential-ingredient-for-contravention-of-s-45-gujarat-sales-tax-act-1969-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":324489,"position":3},"title":"Mens rea not an essential ingredient for contravention of S. 45, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969: Supreme Court","author":"Aastha","date":"April 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe intention of the legislature is very clear and unambiguous that the moment any eventuality as mentioned in Section 45(5) occurs, the penalty shall be leviable as mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 45 of the Gujarat Sales tax Act, 1969\u201d, the Supreme Court observed.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"gujarat sales tax act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/gujarat-sales-tax-act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/gujarat-sales-tax-act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/gujarat-sales-tax-act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/gujarat-sales-tax-act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325687,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/04\/supreme-court-roundup-june-2024-delhi-water-crisis-neet-ug-2024-delhi-liquor-policy-scam-manish-sisodia\/","url_meta":{"origin":324489,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court Roundup June 2024| Stories on Delhi Water crisis; NEET UG 2024; Delhi Liquor Policy scam; Seven sub-rights of Right to Property; and more","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court\u2019s judgments\/orders on Delhi Water crisis; NEET UG 2024; Delhi Excise Liquor Policy; AOR exam; Manish Sisodia Bail; Seven sub-rights of Right to Property and more. It also covers top stories; Never reported Judgments; Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in June; Know thy\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court Roundup June 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Supreme-Court-Roundup-June-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Supreme-Court-Roundup-June-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Supreme-Court-Roundup-June-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Supreme-Court-Roundup-June-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":302757,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/01\/rules-of-stock-exchange-are-rules-for-regulation-of-business-did-not-affect-general-law-of-contract-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":324489,"position":5},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | Rules of Stock Exchange are mere rules for regulation of business and do not affect general law of contract [(1952) 1 SCC 481]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"October 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on reciprocal promises in share transactions under the Contract Act, 1872.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"law of contract","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/law-of-contract.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/law-of-contract.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/law-of-contract.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/law-of-contract.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324489","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\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=324489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324489\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/324499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=324489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=324489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=324489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}