Judgments High Courts & Apex Court

A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT, in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh, Judgment dated NOVEMBER 29, (2004 AIR 2005 SC 446 : 2005 (1) SCC 444) , observed as – Para 11: The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. The principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application and is not limited by the specific words of Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this respect. Res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Satyadhyan Ghosal V/s. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941. A three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT, in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal Versus Deorajin...

AIR 2011 SC 1150 PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED POST & BURDEN OF PROOF: Para 13:  This Court after considering large number of its earlier judgments in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. V/s. Manju Jain & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3817, held that in view of the provisions of Section 114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 there is a presumption that the addressee has received the letter sent by registered post. However, the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of impeccable character. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287. Para 14:  In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. V/s. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, this Court held as under: "There is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a...

AIR 2002 SC 551 Para 8:   Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is...

AIR 1999 SC 1359 Para 40:  The object of serving a "true copy" of an Election Petition and the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice on the respondent in Election Petition is to enable the respondent to understand the charge against him so that he can effectively meet the same in the written statement and prepare his defence. The requirement is, thus, of substance and not of form. Para 41:  The expression "copy" in Sec. 81(3) of the Act, in our opinion, means a copy which is substantially so and which does not contain any material or substantial variation of a vital nature as could possibly mislead a reasonable person to understand and meet the charges / allegations made against him in the election petition. Indeed a copy which differs in material particulars from the original cannot be treated as a true copy of the original within the meaning of Sec. 81(3) of the Act and the vital defect cannot be permitted to be cured afte...

AIR 2007 SC 2967 Para 7:  A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 29.6.1988, copy of which is Annexure-P2 to this appeal, shows that it has been recorded therein that Chacko was not having sound mind when he executed Ext. A3, which is established from Ext.A4 which is the medical certificate. He was treated from 11.8.1983 to 14.8.1983 in Mental Hospital, Trichur for Alcoholic Psychosis. This is a finding of fact which could not have been interfered with by the High Court in Second Appeal. Moreover, it is established from the facts that one cent of land was sold for Rs. 18000.00 on 4.9.1982 vide Ext.A2, while 10 months thereafter three cents of land was sold for only Rs. 1000.00. This corroborates the finding of the First Appellate Court that Chacko was not of sound mind at least at the time when he executed the sale deed dated 11.7.1983. If one cent of land costs Rs. 18000.00 then three cents of land should ordinarily cost Rs. 54000.00. No one in his s...

2012 (4) SCC 307 Para 26:  In view of the above, as the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC itself was not maintainable all subsequent proceedings remained inconsequential. Legal maxim "sublatofundamentocadit opus" which means foundation being removed structure falls is attracted. Sandeep Jalan Advocate https://vakeelkanumber.com/

AIR 2004 SC 1330 Para 32:   Even correspondences marked as without prejudice may have to be interpreted differently in different situations. Para 33:  What would be the effect of without prejudice offer has been considered in Cutts V/s. Head and Another wherein Oliver L.J. speaking for the court of appeals held: "In the end, I think that the question of what meaning is given to the words "without prejudice" is a matter of interpretation which is capable of variation according to usage in the profession. It seems to be that, no issue of public policy being involved, it would be wrong to say that the words were given a meaning in 1889 which is immutable ever after, bearing in mind that the precise question with which we are concerned in this case did not arise in Walker V/s. Wilsher, 23 Q.B.D. 335, and the court did not deal with it. I think that the wide body of practice which undoubtedly exists must be treated as indicating that the meaning to be given...

AIR 1960 SC 1352 Para 9: The matter was again considered in Martin Burn Ltd. V/s. R. N. Banerjee, 1958 SCR 514 where this Court observed, after setting out the materials on the record in that case : "The Labour Appellate Tribunal had to determine on these materials whether a prima facie case had been made out by the applicant for the termination of the respondent's service. A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence." Sandeep Jalan Advocate https://vakeelkanumber.com/

AIR 2001 SC 3173 Para 2:  In 1961 a learned judge of the Patna High Court expressed his anguish when a magistrate took nine months to pronounce a judgment. The words used 'by him for expressing his judicial wrath is the following : "The magistrate who cannot find time to write Judgement within reasonable time after hearing arguments ought not do any judicial work at all. This Court strongly disapproves the magistrates making such a tremendous delay in the delivery of his judgments;" Para 3:  Now when two judges of the Patna High Court took two years for pronouncing a Judgment after concluding arguments when the parties were languishing in jail, the counsel appearing in this Court in challenge of the said Judgment asked in unison whether the exhortation made by the Patna High Court in 1961 is not intended to apply to the High Court. Para 6:  If delay in pronouncing judgments occurred on the part of the judges of the subordinate judiciary the whip of ...