Common Law

In limited understand of things, I write… And, I try to put it simple and straight…. 1.      The dishonor of cheque is made a punishable offence by virtue of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2.      The offences are tried under the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. 3.      Section 179 of said Code reads as – Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues: When an act is an offence, due to anything, which has been done, and of a consequence, which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 4.      The plain reading of Section 179 of said Code would suggest that the alleged commission of an offence, may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the consequence has ensued. 5.      In dishonor of cheques, unarguably, the consequences ensues at the place of the residence / place of business of the

In my limited understanding of the things, I write… 1.       The HC/SC, everyday, lays down so many propositions of law, while they interpret the laws. 2.       It is well settled that HC/SC interpret the provision of any law, in its letter and spirit, and, ordinarily, they don’t invent or legislate; and therefore, ordinarily, the law laid down in any of the judgments are applied retrospectively, suggesting that, “the law laid down” was in fact the intent of the law at the time of its enactment, and said proposition has not emerged by reason of court judgment. 3.       In our pleadings / arguments before the Court, invariably, we rely on, one or the other HC/SC judgments, advancing the proposition of law illustrated in the said judgment. 4.       My proposition is: In our pleadings / arguments, instead of stating / arguing that “HC/SC has said this, or has laid down the said proposition of law”, the “proposition of law” laid down may be stated /argued in the first in

What is the “test” to measure the effectiveness of Collegium Scheme of Appointment 1.       In this write up, I am trying to invent a “test” to measure the effectiveness of Collegium Scheme of Appointment of Judges at High Courts and at Supreme Court of India. 2.       The Collegium scheme of Appointment, the center of controversy, first of all, it must be understood, and in my view, is opposed because of complete lack of transparency in its process, and is not opposed per se. 3.       Whereas the current CJI R. M. Lodha defends the “indefensible” this Non transparent system, I ask myself, what could be the authentic test to measure the effectiveness of this scheme. And why I say it is "indefensible", is because, said "opaque Scheme" is justified in the backdrop, where "open court" is the hallmark and chief attribute of any justice dispensation scheme. 4.       I believe, for this, we should be vising Article 50 of our Constitution

Please find updated contents at: https://www.litigationplatform.com/Judgment/Index/c007d31c-cfe0-4ae2-ad98-e42f70dadd0c