The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings of the judges but also curiosities of lawyers and the law. This blog is not of obligation but of delight. I frankly confess my ignorance of much that ought to be included from overseas jurisdictions; and I utter a gentle prayer that those who know better would lighten my darkness.
Indians have been taught the lesson, and rightly so, that consensual intercourse, even if not procreative, is inherent for the enjoyment of life and liberty of every individual and is protected under constitutional morality. Mr. XYZ has come up with a film script. Cut short, the script is about an 18-year old Indian, who gets disinherited by his family, for honestly admitting that he has indulged in consensual intercourse with a 22-year old male; what follows are legal battles. Two males cannot legally marry in India, yet. The liberties granted to them are limited to, as said and must be repeated, consensual intercourse. Taiwan is the only spot in Asia that recognizes same-sex marriages. Africa? South Africa, certainly.
Kenya is a deeply conservative and religious society. Kenyan society has not been eager to embrace same-sex relationships. Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta, had commented once that LGBTQ rights is “of no major importance” to Kenyans. This was contested in Eric Gitari v. The Hon. Attorney General, [Petition No. 150 of 2016]. On 02.06.2016, High Court of Kenya observed that “Court as a curator of the Constitution has to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is enlightened and progressive”. On 24.06.2019, High Court of Kenya, however, upheld laws that criminalize ‘gay sex’, noticing, there is no ‘conclusive scientific proof’ that ‘LGBTQ people are born that way’. A similar case is pending in Botswana.
“The expression ‘Quasi-Judicial Order’ means a verdict in writing which determines and decides contesting issues and question by a forum other than a Court. The determination has civil consequences.
Explaining the meaning of ‘Quasi-Judicial Body’ in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare, (2002) 5 SCC 685 it was held that when any body of persons has a legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and a duty to act judicially, such body of persons constitute a Quasi-Judicial Body and decision given by them is a Quasi-Judicial Decision. Further, what differentiates an Administrative Act from the Quasi-Judicial Act is that a Quasi-Judicial Body is required to make an enquiry before arriving at a conclusion. In addition, an Administrative Authority is the one which is dictated by policy and expediency whereas a Quasi-Judicial Authority is required to act according to the rules.
This Court in Shrimati Ujjambai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621 has held that the principles of res judicata equally apply to Quasi-Judicial Bodies. Whenever a Quasi-Judicial Tribunal gives a finding on law or fact, its findings cannot be impeached collaterally or in a second round and are binding until reversed in appeal or by way of writ proceedings. The characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether right or wrong.”
– Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No. 5012 of 2019]
Hon’ble Justice Arun Misra, while explaining Section 108 of The Companies Act [Ram Parshottam Mittal v. Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2017], quoted Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray [Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan, (1977) 2 SCC 424];
My Lord, Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan, (1977) 2 SCC 424?
25th November, 1976.
“Negative words can rarely be directory. It has been aptly stated that there is one way to obey the command and that is completely to refrain from doing the forbidden act. Therefore, negative, prohibitory and exclusive words are indicative of the legislative intent when the statute is mandatory.
It is well established that a contract which involves in its fulfillment the doing of an act prohibited by statute is void. The legal maxim ‘a pactis privatorum publico juri non derogatur’ means that private agreements cannot alter the general law. Where a contract, express or implied, is expressly or by implication forbidden by statute, no Court can lend its assistance to give it effect.
The provisions contained in Section 108 are mandatory. The High Court erred in holding that the provisions are directory.”
“The National Commission concluded that the case could not be accepted as class action and dismissed the same. The dismissal of the case as class action is questioned. In T.N. Ganapathy, (1990) 1 SCC 608 it was held that persons who may be represented in a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of CPC need not have the same cause of action and all that is required for application of the said provision is that the persons concerned must have common interest or common grievance. What is required in sameness of interest. Full Bench of The National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla, [Consumer Case No. 97 of 2016] relied upon T.N. Ganapathy to hold that oneness of interest is akin to a common grievance against the same person. However, The National Commission in the instant case, completely lost sight of the principles so clearly laid down. Application preferred by the Appellants under Section 12(1)(c) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is held to be maintainable.”
Most games played just for fun can also be played for money. Lawyers, including the one with 31.4K Followers [Twitter], and Non-Lawyers, paid ample respect and just respect to a game developed on Indian Premier League [IPL]. An esteemed Eashan Ghosh calculated the accuracy of the probabilistic predictions. Mr. Ghosh, phenomenal in his Intellectual Property Law expertise, is a fair man.
‘Ramiz Baba Challenge’ Rules
Ramiz Baba Challengers must disclose their prediction for an IPL Game before the first ball of the game is bowled. While it is discouraged as practice, predictions once entered may be modified up until that first ball is bowled. All predictions must consist of two parts: i) picking a winner and ii) confidence % in the prediction. Predictions must be whole numbers between 51% and 100%. Accuracy of the probabilistic predictions shall be measured by Brier score.
Challengers have 5 ‘leaves’ that may be deployed in course of Games 1 to 60. A ‘leave’ is a non-prediction which keeps a Challenger’s score unaltered. For every non-prediction after 5 games, a Challenger’s score will ‘default’ to a score of 0.300. A good way of avoiding running into 0.300 trouble is to log a ‘default prediction’. Illustration: “Chasing team: 60%”, for instance is a nice, wholesome ‘default prediction’. If a Challenger fails to communicate their prediction before the first ball of a game is bowled, that counts as a ‘leave’ or a ‘default prediction’ or a .300 score [‘default’].
Challengers have 2 ‘free hits’ that may be deployed in course of Games 1 to 56 and not at the knock-out stage [Games 57 to 60]. When deploying a ‘free hit’, a Challenger simply picks a winner along with the magic words ‘free hit’. A correct pick translates into a 0.000 score and an incorrect pick translates into a .250 score.
Were there any more rules? Yes, of course.
After Game 21, ‘Ramiz Baba Challenge’ also involved (an additional) ‘Ramiz Baba Cup’/Copa Del Ramiz/Coup De Baba/Coppa Ramiza; Challengers were power-paired, March Madness Basketball style, within a section-based structure, Tennis Grand Slam style. After Game 21, I was Rank 5.
‘Ramiz Baba Cup’ Rules
If Challenger A opts to ‘leave’ or ‘free-hit’ and Challenger B does not, Challenger B advances to the Next Round. If both Challengers opt to ‘leave’ or ‘free-hit’, both forfeit progress in the Cup and the Opponent, in the Next Round, receives a ‘bye’.
Challengers will, for the Cup Game in question, pick a winner and a confidence %, as usual. If Challenger A picks the winner correctly and Challenger B does not, Challenger A advances to the Next Round. If both Challengers pick the winner correctly, the Challenger with the higher confidence % advances to the Next Round. If both Challengers pick the winner incorrectly, the Challenger with the lower confidence % advances to the Next Round. If both Challengers tie for prediction, the earlier prediction wins if it is correct, and loses if it is wrong.
Challengers can place prediction for a Cup Game, only on the day of the Cup Game [0000 IST]. Challengers can only make one prediction. If the prediction is changed, though the changed prediction counts for Ramiz Baba Challenge, the Challenger is eliminated from Ramiz Baba Cup.
Ramiz Baba Cup Games were designated well in advance. There were many who decided to concentrate on Ramiz Baba Challenge than on Ramiz Baba Cup, to avoid distractions and complications.
Ramiz Baba Challenge is not an easy game. The following may enlighten a reader on fluctuations of intent.
Last Year, Rank 1 had correctly picked a winner of a game 36 times. This Year, Rank 4 & Rank 39 correctly picked a winner of a game 38 times. Most number of correct picks thus increased, though it did not ensure being Rank 1. Last Year, Rank 13 had .257 as his final score. This Year, Rank 13 had .237 as his final score. The competition was stiff.
After Game 17, Top 20:
After Game 60, Top 20
The change of names, over time, only prove ‘skill without luck’ or ‘luck without skill’ is meaningless. All in all it’s just another brick in the wall. Several IPL Followers preferred Dream 11 over Ramiz Baba Challenge. Cricket lovers don’t watch cricket for money only. We wait for another reportage on our humble attempt.
My Lord, Ramiz Baba?
Ramiz Baba is a pseudonym for a NLISU, 2010 Graduate; Poker Champion; Grandson of Former SC Judge. I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse; wait and watch.
“Court’s task is to ascertain the intention of the parties by examining the words they used and giving them their ordinary meaning in their contractual context. It must start with what it is given by the parties themselves when it is conducting this exercise. Effect is to be given to every word, so far as possible, in the order in which they appear in the clauses in question. Words should not be added which are not there, and words which are there should not be changed, taken out or moved from the place in the clause where they have been put by the parties. It may be necessary to do some of these things at a later stage to make sense of the language. But this should not be done until it has become clear that the language the parties actually used creates an ambiguity which cannot be solved otherwise.”
– Hon’bleLord Hope, Multi-Link Leisure Developments Limited v. North Lanarkshire Council (Scotland),  UKSC 47
The well-known rule of interpretation of contracts is that the deed ought to be read as a whole in order to ascertain the true meaning of its several clauses and a word of each clause should be so interpreted as to bring it into harmony with the other provisions of the deed, if that interpretation does no violence to the meaning of which they are naturally susceptible [Chamber Colliery Ltd. v. Twyerould (Note), (1893) (1915) 1 Ch. 268].
– Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, State of Bihar v. Tata Iron, [Civil Appeal No. 3681 of 2014].
“One of the foremost components of theft is that the subject matter of the theft needs to be a “moveable property”; “moveable property” is defined in Section 22, IPC which includes a corporeal property of every description. It is beyond doubt that a document is a “moveable property” within the meaning of Section 22, IPC which can be the subject matter of theft. A “document” is a corporeal property. A thing is “corporeal” if it has a body, material and a physical presence. As per Section 29, IPC “document” denotes “any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used as evidence of that matter”. This definition would include within its ambit photocopy of a document.
Information contained in a document, if replicated, can be the subject of theft and can result in wrongful loss, even though the original document was only temporarily removed from its lawful custody for the purpose of extracting the information contained therein. In the case of K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369 this Court held that gain or loss contemplated need not be a total acquisition or a total deprivation but it is enough if it is a temporary retention of property by the person wrongfully gaining or a temporary keeping out of property from person legally entitled.
Thus, it is held that the “document” as defined in Section 29, IPC is a “moveable property” within the meaning of Section 22, IPC which can be the subject matter of theft. The information contained thereon in the documents would also fall within the purview of the “corporeal property” and can be the subject matter of the theft.”
– Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi, Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., [Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2019].
“In T.P. Kunhaliumma, (1976) 4 SCC 634 this Court held that applications under Article 137 of The Limitation Act, 1963 is not confined to applications contemplated by or under Code of Civil Procedure.
“The conclusion we reach is that Article 137 of The Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a Civil Court. We differ from the view taken in Athani, (1969) 1 SCC 873 and hold that Article 137 is not confined to applications contemplated by or under Code of Civil Procedure.”
In the above case since the application under The Telegraphs Act was filed before the Court, this Court held that Article 137 of The Limitation Act was applicable.”
– Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Rukmini Ganesan v. The Commissioner, The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, [Civil Appeal No. 4582 of 2019].
My Lord, Revision Petitions under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against State Commission Orders in Execution Proceedings?
Revisional Jurisdiction of NCDRC under Section 21(b) is ‘limited’ to Pending/Disposed Consumer Disputes before State Commissions. Execution Petitions cannot be Consumer Disputes. Consumer Disputes don’t ‘encompass’ Execution Proceedings. Execution Proceedings are Independent Proceedings. State Commission Orders in Execution Proceedings aren’t Consumer Dispute Orders.
– Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra, Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani, [Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 2019].
21.10.2015 – Rohit Bansal along with his friends Vineet, Sonu, Rupesh and Monu had gone to Shanghai Club, Hauz Khas in one Santro, UP-16-AM-6317 and Honda Civic, DL-7CF-4118. Around midnight, while dancing in the club, Rohit Bansal’s hand struck an individual to whom he said ‘sorry’. The individual abused and questioned; took a glass and hit. The matter was pacified by the bouncers/security personnel. Rohit Bansal and his friends were sent out and when at IIT Gate, Rohit Bansal realized that his mobile phone was missing. He along with his friends Rupesh, Sonu and Monu went back to Shanghai Club in the Santro.
22.10.2015 – When back, one of the individuals with whom an altercation had taken place, threatened to teach them a lesson; all the accused/assailants started beating them; one of the assailants brought an iron rod from the car and started hitting Rupesh and when Rohit intervened, he was also attacked; another assailant lifted a cemented brick and hit Rupesh on his head; all ran. When Rohit Bansal returned to the Santro, he saw Rupesh lying unconscious. Rupesh was admitted at AIIMS Hospital, Trauma Centre.
26.10.2015 – Rupesh succumbed to injuries.
Sixteen months later, bail was granted to all accused, one by one, and cancelled by High Court, one by one.
“There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. Courts granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Seemingly, the CCTV footage did not cover the entire place of occurrence. High Court rightly set aside the orders granting bail. In crimes like murder, the mere fact that the accused was in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration. The manner in which the deceased was allegedly attacked and the number of injuries inflicted on him prima facie indicates pre-meditation. Apart from CCTV footage, there are other materials on record to show the prima facie case against the accused. In the present case, trial is at a very crucial stage. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same may indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation; accused are directed to surrender.”
– Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi, Anil Kumar Yadav & Others v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 12 SCC 129.