List of top Questions asked in Common Law Admission Test - PG

The other material which prompted the High Court to reach the conclusion that the subsoil/minerals vest in the State is … recitals of a patta which ….. states that if minerals are found in the property covered by the patta and if the pattadar exploits those minerals, the pattadar is liable for a separate tax in addition to the tax shown in the patta and …. certain standing orders of the Collector of Malabar which provided for collection of seigniorage fee in the event of the mining operation being carried on. We are of the clear opinion that the recitals in the patta or the Collector’s standing order that the exploitation of mineral wealth in the patta land would attract additional tax, in our opinion, cannot in any way indicate the ownership of the State in the minerals. The power to tax is a necessary incident of sovereign authority (imperium) but not an incident of proprietary rights (dominium). Proprietary right is a compendium of rights consisting of various constituent, rights. If a person has only a share in the produce of some property, it can never be said that such property vests in such a person. In the instant case, the State asserted its ‘right’ to demand a share in the ‘produce of the minerals worked’ though the expression employed is right – it is in fact the Sovereign authority which is asserted. From the language of the BSO No.10 it is clear that such right to demand the share could be exercised only when the pattadar or somebody claiming through the pattadar, extracts/works the minerals – the authority of the State to collect money on the happening of an event – such a demand is more in the nature of an excise duty/a tax. The assertion of authority to collect a duty or tax is in the realm of the sovereign authority, but not a proprietary right….
The only other submission which we are required to deal with before we part with this matter is the argument of the learned counsel for the State that in view of the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter ‘MMDRA’) which prohibits under Section 4 the carrying on of any mining activity in this country except in accordance with the permit, licence or mining lease as the case may be, granted under the Act, the appellants cannot claim any proprietary right in the sub-soil…
[Extract from the judgment in Thressiamma Jacob v. Dept. of Mining & Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725] (hereafter ‘T Jacob’)

A nationwide lockdown was declared by the Central Government from 24 March 2020 to prevent the spread of the CoVID-19 pandemic. Economic activity came to a grinding halt. The lockdown was extended on several occasions, among them for the second time on 14 April 2020. On 17 April 2020, the Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 5 of the Factories Act to exempt all factories registered under the Act “from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. for adult workers” under Sections 51, 54, 55 and 56. The stated aim of the notification was to provide “certain relaxations for industrial and commercial activities” from 20 April 2020 till 19 July 2020.
Section 5 of the Factories Act provides that in a public emergency, the State Government can exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of the Act, except Section 67. Section 5 is extracted below: “5. Power to exempt during public emergency. — In any case of public emergency the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of this Act except section 67 for such period and subject to such conditions as it may think fit: Provided that no such notification shall be made for a period exceeding three months at a time. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section ‘public emergency’ means a grave emergency whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance.” (emphasis supplied) The notification in its relevant part is extracted below:
“... NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948, the ‘Factories Act’ PART B Government of Gujarat hereby directs that all the factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948 shall be exempted from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. of adult workers under section 51, section 54, and section 55 and section 56 with the following conditions from 20th April till 19th July 2020, –
(1) No adult worker shall be allowed or required to work in a factory for more than twelve hours in any day and Seventy Two hours in any week.
(2) The Periods of work of adult workers in a factory each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed six hours and that no worker shall work for more than six hours before he has had an interval of rest of at least half an hour.
(3) No Female workers shall be allowed or required to work in a factory between 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
(4) Wages shall be in a proportion of the existing wages (e.g. If wages for eight hours are 80 Rupees, then proportionate wages for twelve hours will be 120 Rupees).”
[Extract from judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. The State of Gujarat decided on 1 October, 2020, (hereafter ‘GMS’)]

In view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of a FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register a FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of a FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
[Excerpted from the judgment delivered by Sathasivam, C.J.I. in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (hereafter ‘Lalita Kumari’)]

The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf - Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly differentiates between the “original” document - which would be the original “electronic record” contained in the “computer” in which the original information is first stored and the computer output containing such information, which then may be treated as evidence of the contents of the “original” document. All this necessarily shows that Section 65B differentiates between the original information contained in the “computer” itself and copies made therefrom – the former being primary evidence, and the latter being secondary evidence.
Quite obviously, the requisite certificate in sub-section (4) of the Indian Evidence Act is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, a computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where “the computer”, as defined, happens to be a part of a “computer system” or “computer network” (as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000) and it becomes impossible to physically bring such network or system to the Court, then the only means of proving information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). This being the case, it is necessary to clarify what is contained in the last sentence in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads as “... if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act ...”. This may more appropriately be read without the words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, ...”. With this minor clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited.
[Excerpted from the judgment delivered by R.F. Nariman, J., in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash K. Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.]

There are two different ways we can think about law and law-making. To put it crudely: we can think of law as partisan, as nothing more than the expression in legislative terms of the particular ideology or policies of a political party; or we can think of law as neutral, as something that stands above party politics, at least in the sense that once passed it ought to command the obedience and respect of everyone...
[Political] Parties compete for control of Parliament because they want their values, their ideology, and their programme to be reflected in the law of the land… …no-one doubts that the Commons stage is the most important, and the reason surely is that the House of Commons is the institution most subject to popular control. If laws passed by one Parliament turn out to be unpopular, the electorate can install a majority that is sworn to repeal them. That is what elections and representative politics are all about. On this model, it is simply fatuous to pretend that law is somehow ‘above’ politics. Maybe there are some laws on which everyone agrees, no matter what their ideology. Everyone agrees there should be a law against murder, for example, and that there should be basic rules of the road. But as soon as we turn to the fine print, it is surprisingly difficult to find a consensus on the detail of any legislative provision. And in many cases, even the fundamental principles are the subject of fierce political dispute… What this model stresses, then, is that legislative attitudes are necessarily partisan attitudes. So long as there is tight party discipline in Parliament, legislative decisions will be taken on the basis of the ideology of the leadership of the party in power. The partisan model stresses the legitimacy of these attitudes and this form of decision-making…
By contrast, what I call ‘the neutral model’ enjoins a certain respect for law and lawmaking which goes beyond purely partisan views. According to this model there is something special about law, and it carries with it special non-partisan responsibilities. Proponents of the neutral model do not deny that laws are made by party politicians, and that legislation is often motivated by disputed values and ideologies… …their view is that when a law is being made, something solemn is being decided in Parliament in the name of the whole society. Though it is reasonable for bills to be proposed and debated along partisan lines, the decision procedures of Parliament are designed to indicate not merely which is the stronger party, but what is to be the view of society as a whole on some matter for the time being… …the result, the outcome, is a decision of the House as a whole: it is, literally, an act of Parliament, not merely an act of the Conservative party or an act of the Labour party, whichever commands the majority. By virtue of the parliamentary process, it transcends partisan politics, and presents itself as a norm enacted for and on behalf of the entire community…
…on the neutral model, the social function idea tends to receive more emphasis than the political provenance. For this reason, the neutral model often focuses on aspects of the legal system that do not involve explicitly partisan initiatives. It focuses on those areas of law where there is something approaching unanimity (such as the fundamental principles of the criminal law and some of the basic tenets of private law). And it focuses particularly on ‘the common law’... ...when common law doctrine strikes out in new directions, the change is usually presented as the product of reasoning which is independent of politics, as though there were an evolving ‘logic’ of the law which could proceed untainted by partisan values or ideology.
[Excerpted, with edits, from The Law, by Jeremy Waldron, Routledge, Oxon, 1990.]

…If a person enters into a transaction which is surely likely to result in loss, he cannot be accused of insider trading. In other words, the actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential.
The words, “likely to materially affect the price” appearing in the main part of Regulation 2(ha) gain significance for the simple reason that profit motive, if not actual profit should be the motivating factor for a person to indulge in insider trading. This is why the information in Item No.(vii) of the Explanation under Regulation 2(ha) may have to be examined with reference to the words “likely to materially affect the price”. Keeping this in mind let us now come back to the facts of the case.
Gammon Infrastructure Projects Limited (“GIPL”) was awarded a contract for the execution of a project, whose total cost was admittedly ₹ 1,648 crores. Simplex Infrastructure Limited (“SIL”) was awarded a contract for a project whose cost was ₹ 940 crores. Both GIPL and SIL created Special Purpose Vehicles and then they entered into two shareholders Agreements. Under these Agreements, GIPL and SIL will have to make investments in the Special Purpose Vehicles created by each other, in such a manner that each of them will hold 49% equity interest in the other’s project.
It means that GIPL could have acquired 49% equity interest in the project worth ₹ 940 crores and SIL would have acquired 49% equity interest in a project worth ₹ 1,648 crore.
In arithmetical terms, the acquisition by GIPL, of an equity interest in SIL’s project was worth ₹ 460 crores approximately. Similarly, the acquisition by SIL, of the equity interest in GIPL’s project was worth ₹ 807.52 crores. Therefore, the cancellation of the shareholders Agreements resulted in GIPL gaining very hugely in terms of order book value. In such circumstances an ordinary man of prudence would expect an increase in the value of the shares of GIPL and would wait for the market trend to show itself up, if he actually desired to indulge in insider trading. But the respondent did not wait for the information about the market trend, after the information became public. The reason given by him, which is also accepted by the Whole-Time Member (“WTM”) and the Tribunal is that he had to dispose of his shares as well as certain other properties for the purpose of honouring a Corporate Debt Restructuring (“CDR”) package. It is on record that if the CDR package had not gone through successfully, the parent company of GIPL namely, Gammon India Ltd., could have gone for bankruptcy.
Therefore, the Tribunal was right in thinking that the respondent had no motive or intention to make undeserved gains by encashing on the unpublished price sensitive information that he possessed.
As a matter of fact, the Tribunal found that the closing price of shares rose, after the disclosure of the information. This shows that the unpublished price sensitive information was such that it was likely to be more beneficial to the shareholders, after the disclosure was made. Any person desirous of indulging in insider trading, would have waited till the information went public, to sell his holdings. The respondent did not do this, obviously on account of a pressing necessity.
[Excerpted from the judgment delivered by Ramasubramanian, J., in Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan, CA No. 563 of 2020 (hereafter ‘A Rajan’)]

The Russian Federation’s specific claims alleging genocide, and invoking that alleged genocide as the basis for military action against Ukraine, include:
a. On 21 February 2022, the President of the Russian Federation stated in an official address that there was a “genocide” occurring in Ukraine, “which almost 4 million people are facing.”…
b. The President of the Russian Federation then announced a “special military operation” and stated that “[t]he purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime.”…
c. In an interview on 25 February 2022, the Russian Ambassador to the European Union was asked about President Putin’s reference to genocide as justification for Russia’s unlawful acts against Ukraine and said “[w]e can turn to the official term of genocide as coined in international law. If you read the definition it fits pretty well.”…
Therefore, the parties’ dispute over first, the existence of acts of genocide, and second, Russia’s claim to legal authority to take military action in and against Ukraine to punish and prevent such alleged genocide, is a dispute that concerns the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the [1] Convention. Accordingly, the Court should recognize its jurisdiction on a prima facie basis for purposes of indicating provisional measures.
[Excerpted from: Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Submitted by Ukraine, February 26, 2022, in Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), International Court of Justice]

Food Corporation of India (“FCI” or “Corporation”), the Appellant herein, procures and distributes foodgrains across the length and breadth of the country as a part of its statutory duties. In the process, it enters into many contracts with transport contractors. In one such contract, the subject matter of present appeals, the Corporation empowered itself (under clause XII (a)) to recover damages, losses, charges, costs and other expenses suffered due to the contractors’ negligence from the sums payable to them. The short question arising for consideration is whether the demurrages imposed on the Corporation by the Railways can be, in turn, recovered by the Corporation from the contractors as “charges” recoverable under clause XII (a) of the contract. In other words, does contractors’ liability for “charges”, if any, include demurrages?
“XII [Road Transport Contract]. Recovery of losses suffered by the Corporation (a) The Corporation shall be at liberty to reimburse themselves for any damages, losses, charges, costs or expenses suffered or incurred by them, or any amount payable by the Contractor as Liquidated Damages as provided in Clauses X above….”
Interpretation of contracts concerns the discernment of the true and correct intention of the parties to it. Words and expressions used in the contract are principal tools to ascertain such intention. While interpreting the words, courts look at the expressions falling for interpretation in the context of other provisions of the contract and also in the context of the contract as a whole. These are intrinsic tools for interpreting a contract. As a principle of interpretation, courts do not resort to materials external to the contract for construing the intention of the parties. There are, however, certain exceptions to the rule excluding reference or reliance on external sources to interpret a contract. One such exception is in the case of a latent ambiguity, which cannot be resolved without reference to extrinsic evidence. Latent ambiguity exists when words in a contract appear to be free from ambiguity; however, when they are sought to be applied to a particular context or question, they are amenable to multiple outcomes….”. It observed that “….Extrinsic evidence, in cases of latent ambiguity, is admissible both to ascertain where necessary, the meaning of the words used, and to identify the objects to which they are to be applied.
The Corporation in the present contract has chosen not to include the power to recover demurrages and as such the expression “charges” cannot be interpreted to include demurrages. Demurrage is undoubtedly a charge, however, such a textual understanding would not help us decipher the true and correct intention of the parties to the present contract”. After examining the contract in its entirety, including its nature and scope, the Court concluded that the contractors’ liability in the present contract was clearly distinguishable from other contracts entered into by the Corporation in 2010 and 2018, which included loading and unloading of foodgrains from the railway wagons within the scope of contractors’ duties, thereby necessitating the inclusion of demurrages as a penalty for non-performance of contractual duties.
[Extracted from: Food Corporation of India v. Abhijit Paul, (CA 8572-8573/2022). Judgment of Justices A.S. Bopanna and P.S. Narasimha, 18 November 2022]

The Plaintiff is a world-renowned company, carrying on business in the field of sealants and adhesives, construction and paint chemicals, art materials, industrial adhesives, industrial and textile resins and organic pigments and preparations since at least 1969. The mark M-SEAL was conceived and adopted by the Plaintiff’s predecessors in title… in or about the year 1968, and has been continuously, extensively and in an uninterrupted manner used since then.
The said mark and the artistic representation thereof have been acquired by the Plaintiff pursuant to agreement dated 27 March 2000, together with the goodwill thereof and the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark M-SEAL and/or marks consisting of M-SEAL as one of its leading, essential and distinctive features.
Plaintiff’s earliest trade mark registration bearing no. 282168 [is] in respect of the mark M-SEAL, dated 16th August 1972, claiming use from 1st December 1968… The registrations are valid and subsisting and the entries appearing on the register of trade marks including the dates of use thus constitute prima facie evidence of such facts.
It is stated that the Plaintiff's M-SEAL registration bearing No. […] contains a disclaimer with regard to the word PHATAPHAT, however the mark as a whole is registered and to that extent all features taken as a whole stand protected by the registration. Further, it is stated that registration bearing no. […] contains a disclaimer with regard to the word SEAL and the registrations bearing nos. […] have a condition imposed on it viz “Registration of this trade mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of all other descriptive matters appearing on the label”. However, the Plaintiff states that these conditions do not limit the rights of the Plaintiff including for reasons set out hereinafter and in any event the rest of the M-SEAL registrations have no conditions/limitations.
The unique and distinctive artistic representation of M-SEAL i.e., (including in particular the unique line below the mark which is an extension from the first letter of the mark) as well as the M-SEAL Labels are original artistic works in respect of which copyrights subsist and such copyrights are owned by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff states that in or about December 2020, the Plaintiff was shocked and surprised to come across sealant products of the Defendant being sold under the mark R-SEAL, which mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark M-SEAL... The said product of the Defendant is identical to the M-SEAL product of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s product also bears an impugned packaging/labels/ trade dress which is a reproduction of and/or in appearance, almost identical or deceptively similar to the M-SEAL products of the Plaintiff, and the M-SEAL Labels… The impugned products of the Defendant also bear the impugned identification mark JHAT-PAT that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s identification mark PHATAPHAT.
In comparing rival marks / labels to consider whether they are similar, the Supreme Court in Cadilla Healthcare Limited v. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Limited, 2001 (2) PTC 541 SC10 lays down that attention and stress is to be given to the common features in the two rather than on differences in essential features.
[Source: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy 1-IA (L) 15502 of 2021 in Comm. IP. Su. 147 of 2022. Decision of Justice R. I. Chagla of the Bombay High Court, 11 November, 2022]

The philosophy of Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) has had a long-standing history in India. India is one of the first countries in the world to create a legal framework on CSR and statutorily mandate companies to report on the same. It emanates from the Gandhian principles of trusteeship and giving back to the society. The intent of the law is to mainstream the practice of business involvement in CSR and make it socially, economically and environmentally responsible.
The Companies Act, 2013 (the ‘Act’) mandates companies meeting a certain minimum threshold in terms of turnover/net worth/net profit to undertake CSR activities as per Schedule VII of the Act. Schedule VII specifies the areas or subjects to be undertaken by the company as CSR activities. These areas broadly align with national priorities and relate to sustainable and inclusive development. The Act does not recognise any expenditure on areas/activities outside of Schedule VII as CSR expenditure. Companies (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014 prescribes the operational framework and manner in which companies should comply with CSR provisions under the Act. The mode of implementation of CSR activities, content of CSR policy, impact assessment, reporting requirements and disclosure for CSR are covered under these Rules. The CSR architecture is disclosure-based and CSR-mandated companies are required to file details of CSR activities annually in the MCA-21 registry in e-form AOC-4.
A High-Level Committee set up in 2018 to review the CSR framework recommended that Schedule VII of the Act be mapped with Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDGs’). The Committee noted that companies need to balance CSR spending between local area/areas around where it operates, and less developed regions such as aspirational districts.
The Government of India launched the ‘Transformation of Aspirational Districts’ programme (‘ADP’) in January 2018 with the aim to improve [the] socio-economic status of the least developed regions across India. The programme is based on five socio-economic themes such as – Health & Nutrition, Education, Agriculture and Water Resources, Financial Inclusion and Skill Development and improvement of basic infrastructure… As on date, 112 aspirational districts are recognised by the Government wherein Jharkhand has the highest number of aspirational districts i.e., 19 followed by Bihar (13), Odisha and Chhattisgarh (10 each). The Government has been taking various initiatives to encourage CSR in aspirational districts and to remove regional disparities.
[Source: Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India “Compendium on Corporate Social Responsibility in India” (2021)]

The International Court of Justice recalls that, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, it has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial proceedings or when the alleged disregard of such rights may entail irreparable consequences. However, this power will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed before the Court gives its final decision. The condition of urgency is met when the acts susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can “occur at any moment” before the Court makes a final decision on the case. The Court must therefore consider whether such a risk exists at this stage of the proceedings. The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of provisional measures for the protection of the right found to be plausible. Having determined that Ukraine can plausibly assert a right under the Genocide Convention and that there is a link between this right and the provisional measures requested, the Court then considers whether irreparable prejudice could be caused to this right and whether there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to this right before the Court gives its final decision.

If a tax is ultra vires or unconstitutional then the party is entitled to have a refund of it from the government whether it has been paid under protest or not. This Court has held that the payment of tax which is without authority of law is payment made under a mistake within the meaning of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. Then, in such a case, question would arise, whether the government to whom the payment had been made by mistake must repay it. Thus, the principle of restitution or repayment of the tax simpliciter has been considered in light of the doctrine of unlawful enrichment. The doctrine envisages that when the State collects a tax from the tax-payer without authority of law, but if the taxpayer has already passed on the burden of the tax money paid by him to the State to someone else and has recouped the money then the taxpayer is not entitled to ask for the restitution from the State the money paid by him as unauthorized tax. In such circumstances, the State cannot be asked to refund the tax money to the taxpayer on the principle of unlawful enrichment.

Drinking water is of primary importance in any country. In fact, India is a party to the Resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water Conference which reads as under:
“All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs.” Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. There is, therefore, need to take into account the right to a healthy environment along with the right to sustainable development and balance them. Competing Human Rights to healthy environment and sustainable development.

On repeal of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and on the enforcement of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, other than a Board is stipulated under Section 9(2) and (3). The same reads as ‘‘In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be: Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act. If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.”

In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances which lead to the conclusion of guilt should be in the first instance fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be shown that within all human probability the act must have been committed by the accused.

The right to clean and healthy environment has been recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 48-A imposes a duty upon the State to endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the Country. In addition to this, India is also a party to international treaties, agreements and conferences and has committed itself to sustainable development and growth. This legal framework indicates that sustainable development must remain at the heart of any development policy implemented by the state. It is essential to strike the right balance between environmental conservation and protection on one hand, and the right to development on the other, while articulating the doctrine of sustainable development. We may add that in our opinion conservation and development need not be viewed as binaries, but as complementary strategies that weave into one another. In other words, conservation of nature must be viewed as part of development and not as a factor stultifying development.

The Supreme Court of India in a Suo Motu Writ Petition In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021], analyzed the power of judicial review over the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. The Union of India has highlighted a few concerns as: The executive is battling an unprecedented crisis and the government needs discretion to formulate policy in larger interest and its wisdom should be trusted; The current vaccine policy conforms to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and requires no interference from the courts as the executive has room for free play in the joints while dealing with a pandemic of this magnitude; Judicial review over executive policies is permissible only on account of manifest arbitrariness. No interference from judicial proceedings is called for when the executive is operating on expert medical and scientific opinion to tackle a medical crisis; and any over-zealous judicial intervention, though well-meaning, in the absence of expert advice or administrative experience may lead to unintended circumstances where the executive is left with little room to explore innovative solutions. The court clarified that in the context of the public health emergency, the executive has been given a wider margin in enacting measures which ordinarily may have violated the liberty of individual. The judiciary has also recognized that Constitutional scrutiny is transformed during such public health emergencies and noted the complex role of the government in battling public health emergencies in following words: ...While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty or property as secured to the individual by the Supreme Law of the Land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten and a public health emergency does not give Governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists. …the courts should expect policies that more carefully account for Constitutional rights. The court stated that separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. However, this separation of powers does not result in courts lacking jurisdiction in conducting a judicial review of these policies.

Supreme Court of India has pointed out that there are not less than 100 instances under the Income Tax Act, 1961, where in the event of amalgamation, the method of treatment of a particular subject matter is expressly indicated in the provisions of the Act. In some instances, amalgamation results in withdrawal of a special benefit (such as an area exemption under Section 80IA) - because it is entity or unit specific. In the case of carry forward of losses and profits, a nuanced approach has been indicated. All these provisions support the idea that the enterprise or the undertaking, and the business of the amalgamated company continues. The beneficial treatment, in the form of set-off, deductions (in proportion to the period the transferee was in existence, vis-à-vis the transfer to the transferee company); carry forward of loss, depreciation, all bear out that under the Act, (a) the business-including the rights, assets and liabilities of the transferor company do not cease, but continue; (b) by deeming fiction-through several provisions of the Act, the treatment of various issues, is such that the transferee is deemed to carry on the enterprise as that of the transferor.

Sections 31 to 35 of Chapter III of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with contingent contracts and Section 36 deals with contingent agreements. A contingent contract is one where the liability to perform the promise depends upon some collateral event which may or may not happen. A contract of insurance is an example of a contingent contract, where the liability of the insurer depends upon the occurrence of the event, viz. damage or destruction arising out of fire. Life insurance in a broader sense comprises any contract in which one party agrees to pay a given sum upon happening of a particular event contingent upon duration of human life, in consideration of the immediate payment of a smaller sum or certain equivalent periodical payments by another. The event may be certain but it’s happening in a specific manner or within a particular time would be uncertain. A contract of indemnity to make good the loss arising out of the conduct of the promisor is a contract contingent upon the act of a party. Such condition may be express or may also be implied into a contract. A contract for storage of potatoes in a cold storage cooling system was held subject to an implied condition that it could be performed only when there was continuous electric supply. But where there is a document embodying the terms of a contract, it is not permissible to imply therein a condition if that will be inconsistent with its express terms.

To every State whose land territory is at any place washed by the sea, international law attaches a corresponding portion of maritime territory... International law does not say to a State: “You are entitled to claim territorial waters if you want them”. No maritime State can refuse them. International law imposes upon a maritime State, certain obligations and confers upon it certain rights arising out of the sovereignty which it exercises over its maritime territory. The possession of this territory is not optional, not dependent upon the will of the State, but compulsory. In the ninth edition of Oppenheim’s International Law, the nationality of ships in the high seas has been referred to in paragraph 287, wherein it has been observed that the legal order on the high seas is based primarily on the rule of International Law which requires every vessel sailing the high seas to possess the nationality of, and to fly the flag of, one State, whereby a vessel and persons on board the vessel are subjected to the law of the State of the flag and in general subject to its exclusive jurisdiction. In paragraph 291 of the aforesaid discourse, the learned author has defined the scope of flag jurisdiction to mean that jurisdiction in the high seas is dependent upon the Maritime Flag under which vessels sail, because no State can extend its territorial jurisdiction to the high seas. Of course, the aforesaid principle is subject to the right of ‘hot pursuit’, which is an exception to the exclusiveness of the flag jurisdiction over ships on the high seas in certain special cases.

Section 304-B (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) defines ‘dowry death’ of a woman. It provides that ‘dowry death’ is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Further, Section 304-B (2) of IPC provides punishment for the aforesaid offence. The Supreme Court of India summarized the law under Section 304-B of IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) as under:
(i) Section 304-B of IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand;
(ii) The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B of IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B of IEA operates against the accused;
(iii) The phrase ‘soon before’ as appearing in Section 304-B of IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish existence of ‘proximate and live link’ between the cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives and the consequential death of the victim

In Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 382, the court analysed the ambit of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and also the scope of the expression ‘arrest’ contained therein and also under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). ‘Arrest’ may be classified into two categories, namely, the arrest under a warrant issued by a court and arrest without warrant. Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly directs that the investigation should be completed in the first instance within 24 hours; if not the arrested person should be brought before a Magistrate as provided under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Turning now to Article 22(1) and (2), we must ascertain whether its protection extends to both categories of arrests mentioned above, and, if not, then which one of them comes within its protection. There can be no matter of doubt that arrests without warrants issued by a court call for greater protection than do arrests under such warrants. The provision that the arrested person should within 24 hours be produced before the nearest Magistrate is particularly desirable in the case of arrest otherwise than under a warrant issued by the court, for it ensures the immediate application of a judicial mind to the legal authority of the person making the arrest and the regularity of the procedure adopted by him. In the case of arrest under a warrant issued by a court, the judicial mind had already been applied to the case when the warrant was issued and, therefore, there is less reason for making such production in that case a matter of a substantive fundamental right. The matter of ‘House Arrest’ was deliberated by the court as: “There can be no quarrel with the proposition that a court cannot remand a person unless the court is authorised to do so by law. We are of the view, that in the facts of this case, the house arrest was not ordered purporting to be under Section 167. We observe that under Section 167 in appropriate cases it will be open to courts to order house arrest.”

The constitutional validity of the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB-HIRA) was challenged on the basis that both WB-HIRA and a Parliamentary enactment, namely, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) are relatable to the legislative subjects contained in Entries 6 and 7 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. WB-HIRA has neither been reserved for nor has it received Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, which was necessary since it was going to occupy the same field as the RERA, a law which had been enacted by the Parliament. The State enactment contains certain provisions which are either: directly inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of the Central enactment; or a virtual replica of the Central enactment; and Parliament having legislated on a field covered by the Concurrent List, it is constitutionally impermissible for the State Legislature to enact a law over the same subject matter by setting up a parallel legislation. The analysis indicates repugnancy between WB-HIRA and RERA. Undoubtedly, as Article 254(1) postulates, the legislation enacted by the State legislature is void ‘to the extent of the repugnancy’. There is, not only a direct conflict of certain provisions between the RERA and WB-HIRA, but there is also a failure of the State legislature to incorporate statutory safeguards in WB-HIRA, which have been introduced in the RERA for protecting the interest of the purchasers of real estate. For repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution, there is a twin requirement to be fulfilled: firstly, there has to be a ‘repugnancy’ between a Central and State Act; and secondly, the Presidential assent has to be held as being non-existent. The test for determining such repugnancy is indeed to find out the dominant intention of both the legislations and whether such dominant intentions of both the legislations are alike or different. A provision in one legislation in order to give effect to its dominant purpose may incidentally be on the same subject as covered by the provision of the other legislation, but such partial or incidental coverage of the same area in a different context and to achieve a different purpose does not attract the doctrine of repugnancy. In order to attract the doctrine of repugnancy, both the legislations must be substantially on the same subject. Hence, WB-HIRA is repugnant to the RERA, and is hence unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of India, in South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (SEAMEC LTD.) v. Oil India Ltd.,(2020) 5 SCC 164, noted that, under the Indian contract law, the consequences of a force majeure event are provided for under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which deals with a contract to do an Act which, after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the Act becomes impossible or unlawful. When the parties have not provided for what would take place when an event which renders the performance of the contract impossible, then Section 56 applies. When the Act contracted for becomes impossible, then under Section 56, the parties are exempted from further performance and the contract becomes void. The Court has further held that in Section 56, the word ‘impossible’ is to be taken in its practical and not literal sense. It must be borne in mind, however, that Section 56 lays down a rule of positive law and does not leave the matter to be determined according to the intention of the parties. However, there is no doubt that the parties may instead choose the consequences that would flow on the happening of an uncertain future event, under Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Supreme Court of India has held that the nature of inquiry before the Family Court is, indeed, adjudicatory. It is obliged to resolve the rival claims of the parties and while doing so, it must adhere to the norms prescribed by the statute in that regard and also the foundational principle of fairness of procedure and natural justice. These provisions plainly reveal that the Family Court is expected to follow procedure known to law, which means insist for a formal pleading to be filed by both sides, then frame the issues for determination, record the evidence of the parties to prove the facts asserted by the concerned party and only thereafter, to enter upon determination and render decision thereon by recording the reasons for such decision. For doing this, the Family Court is expected to give notice to the respective parties and provide them sufficient time and opportunity to present their claim in the form of pleadings and evidence before determination of the dispute.