Law and Literature

The law does not lay down a strict limitation or timeline to lodge an FIR, however an inordinate delay of FIR without any plausible reasons and sufficient causes would be very prejudicial towards the outcome of the case. A belated FIR that involves grave offence ought to be lodged as soon as instances or dispute arise, but does the law permit the validity of a delayed FIR? Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence or incident by the informant paves a path towards the credibility of the incident and in case of any inordinate delay to report the same, a sufficient and valid reason explaining the delay would not make the complainant’s case improbable but failure to provide such sufficient reasons may lead to a presumption that the incident never happened or was an after thought. The Supreme Court in Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana (1997) 7 SCC 231 held that   ‘deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal’ Reiterating the same, Chauhan J while deciding an appeal that fa...

The Black law dictionary defines   ‘Adverse’ as opposed; contrary; in resistance or opposition to a claim. Adverse inference is an important element during the course of trial to weigh on the principle of presumption. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence,1872 (corresponding section 119 of the BSA, 2023) states thus: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustration (g):  that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it ; The above section is built on the principle of presumption and the illustration (g) gives the court the thought and liberty to draw an adverse inference against a party who  knowingly fails to produce evidences.   The Supreme court in Ajay Kumar D Amin vs Air France, Civil Appeal ...

There has been many mixed criticism and appreciation received by the  recent ruling of the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Gayatri Balasamy vs. M/s. Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited 2025 INSC 605   ('BALASAMY')   that conferred the power to the court to modify an Arbitral award.  Some have welcomed the verdict as it would lead to better administration of arbitration proceedings and many have questioned the judicial inference the  verdict imposes. I.  PRELUDE. The essence of law is that it is always evolving with respect to the changing times and its statutory provision have to be given liberal interpretations accordingly. To welcome this verdict and whether the court had the power to give a constructive meaning to the statutory provision of section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 the court should and ought to ‘iron the creases’  of any statutes enacted by the legislation and give a holistic perspective, if required.  Jutsice kris...

"'Any Order' envisaged under section 18 of the SARFESI Act, should be given a meaningful interpretation." There had been a growing practice about the strict compliance with respect to the pre-deposit of minimum 25% in an appeal filed under Section 18(1) of the Securitizations and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the “SARFAESI” Act) aggrieved under any measures under section 17 of the SARFESI, Act. Section 18 of the Act reads as thus: 18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.— (1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal1 [under section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal. Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained...

The confusion and the legal corundum for computing the loss and profit during breach of contract on account of delay in execution  the work , causing extra expenses and losses   has been an intrinsic task for the arbitrators who end up granting more than the required amount without giving proper reasoning and justification. It is a settled law that a party claiming loss has to establish breach. And once breach is established the aggrieved party can claim compensation as envisaged under section 73 & 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Supreme Court has also opined that reasonable expectation of profit is implicit in a works contract and   if the other party to the contract is guilty of breach of contract ,   loss has to be compensated by way of damages     (see .T. Brij Paul Singh v. State of Gujarat , (1984) 4 SCC 59 and  Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P ., (1999) 3 SCC 500, ) What is the correct manner in how the arbitrator can compute the quantif...

In a summons case, when the complainant institutes a case and the magistrate once satisfied, takes cognizance and issues a summons under section 204 CRPC for stating the substance of charge under 251 CRPC . But what would be the legal recourse if the said person is wrongly charged or if the magistrate did not have the jurisdiction over him.? Since, under section 239 of the CRPC, the magistrate can only discharge the accused in a warrant case and section 258 CRPC allows the magistrate to stop the proceedings of the accused at any stage if the case is instituted other than by way of complaint,  with no statutory remedy available in the CRPC for discharging the accuse in a summons case, the magistrate would be bound to frame the notice under 251 CRPC even if the accused had been wrongly charged. For example, In 420 IPC cases, being a warrant case the accused can seek discharge under 239Crpc but in 138 NI Act cases, being a summons case, the accused cannot seek discharge at the stage o...

The practice of employers especially the government entities in providing employment on a temporary ad-hoc basis for considerable extended period without providing fair and stable employment has been strongly depreciated and criticized by the S upreme court of judicature in recent occasions. The apex court has expressed that employers inadvertently avails the remedy granted by the  constitutional bench judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.1   where in the constitutional bench held that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees ,  while ignoring the fact that the said judgment also explicitly acknowledges that no employee should be kept temporarily for an indefinite period and should be considered for regularization at the earliest or be made clear regarding its employment status. a)  The object of the statuary provision of section 25F  of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .   is that it grants  partial protection...