Argument Lab

Key Precedents

• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 — Constitution Bench held that regularization of employees appointed de hors sanctioned posts is impermissible; exception applies only to irregular appointments in sanctioned posts for ten years or more without court protection.
• State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247 — Clarified that one-time measure under Umadevi applies only to employees working in vacant posts and possessing requisite qualification.

Key Precedents

• Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Ltd. (2022) 17 SCC 797 — Held that equals must be treated equally; if persons similarly placed are treated differently without rational basis, it violates Article 14.
• Pawan Kumar v. Union of India 2026 INSC 156 — Held that when certain employees have been regularized but others similarly placed were left out, such differential treatment is discriminatory, and the same relief must be granted.
• Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 — Held that Umadevi does not intend to penalize long-serving employees; the State cannot take mechanical shelter under Umadevi to deny equitable treatment.

Key Precedents

• Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (1995) 4 SCC 459 — Held that mere deprivation of natural heirs is not by itself a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea of a Will is to interfere with normal succession.
• Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277 — Held that suspicious circumstances must be real, germane and valid; the exclusion of natural heirs without more does not qualify.
• G. Amalorpavam v. R. C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224 — Held that non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC does not vitiate judgment if there is substantial compliance.

Key Precedents

• Ram Piari v. Bhagwant (1990) 3 SCC 364 — Held that prudence requires a reason for denying inheritance to natural heirs; absence of reason shrouds the disposition with suspicion.
• Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) 11 SCC 277 — Held that suspicious circumstances must be real, germane and valid; the exclusion of natural heirs without reason is a real suspicious circumstance.
• Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1198 — Held that stringent requisites for proof of Will are statutorily enjoined to rule out manipulation.

Key Precedents

• Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2020 SCC OnLine Del 931) — Delhi High Court held that if admitted income of the respondent is on record, the Court may fix ad-interim maintenance even before affidavits are filed; this direction has not been overruled by the Supreme Court.
• Inder Singh v. Sumitra (2019 SCC OnLine Del 9485) — Delhi High Court held that filing of a separate application for interim maintenance is not a pre-condition under Section 125 CrPC; the Court can grant maintenance without an application.
• Rajesh Chaudhary v. Nirmala Chaudhary (2006) 86 DRJ 61 — Delhi High Court held that ad-interim maintenance may be granted based on the respondent's admitted income to avoid hardship.

Key Precedents

• Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 — Supreme Court held that a concise application for interim maintenance along with Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is mandatory; the Family Court cannot grant maintenance without such application.
• Manish Divedi v. Jyotsana (2019 SCC OnLine Del 10492) — Delhi High Court distinguished ad-interim maintenance from interim maintenance, but held that ad-interim maintenance must be based on prima facie material; the Family Court here passed a detailed order after hearing, which is more than ad-interim.
• Rajesh Chaudhary v. Nirmala Chaudhary (2006) 86 DRJ 61 — Held that ad-interim maintenance may be granted based on admitted income, but only where the respondent admits liability; the petitioner here never admitted liability.

Key Precedents

• Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 5 SCC 24 — Held that no conditions beyond those in the statute can be imposed; the landowner cannot be made to waive statutory rights; the mutual rights and obligations are enumerated in the statute.
• Kukreja Construction Company v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 14 SCC 594 — Held that compensation is payable without a representation; delay and laches do not bar claims for statutory compensation; a duty is cast on the State under Article 300A.
• Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai (2023) 15 SCC 110 — Held that when the law is unclear, the right to claim additional TDR is in suspended animation; waiting does not amount to abandonment.

Key Precedents

• Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam (1971) 1 SCC 619 — Held that a mandatory provision made for the protection or benefit of a private individual can be waived by that person.
• Sita Ram Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2008) 5 SCC 711 — Reaffirmed the principle of waiver of private rights.
• Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar (2003) 2 SCC 721 — Held that a party can waive a right that is for its benefit.

Key Precedents

• Abuthagir v. State (2009) 17 SCC 208 — Held that mere belated disclosure of a particular fact by a witness is not, by itself, a ground to discard such testimony, provided the evidence is otherwise cogent and credible.

Key Precedents

• Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 482 — Held that where identity of the accused is not known and TIP has not been conducted, the court must examine whether there was any description of the accused in the FIR or in statements recorded during investigation; absence thereof makes conviction unsafe.
• Abuthagir v. State (2009) 17 SCC 208 — Distinguished: the principle that belated disclosure does not discard testimony applies to delay in examination of witnesses, not to material improvements after earlier depositions were silent.

Key Precedents

• TPDDL v. PPCL (Petition No. 199/MP/2019, CERC, 29.11.2023) — Held that misdeclaration of declared capability requires absence of adequate coal stock or plant shutdown/repair; mere failure to achieve declared capacity is not sufficient.
• PSEB v. CERC (Appeal No. 79 of 2007, APTEL, 11.12.2007) — Held that less than 1% deviation is within practical limits and does not justify an allegation of gaming.
• Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. CCI (2017) 8 SCC 47 — Held that where two reasonable interpretations are possible, the interpretation favouring the assessee should be adopted, especially for penal provisions.

Key Precedents

• Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008) 13 SCC 369 — Held that penalty arising from breach of civil obligation does not require proof of mens rea; the mere use of the word 'penalty' is not determinative of whether proceedings are criminal or quasi-criminal.
• Chairman, SEBI v. Sri Ram Mutual Fund (2006) 5 SCC 361 — Held that mens rea is not a straitjacket formula; the language and scheme of the Act determine whether mens rea is required for penalty.

Key Precedents

• State of U.P. v. Anurudh 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40 — Cited to recognise the distinction between constitutional power and statutory power, but distinguished on the ground that the directions in the present case do not contradict any statutory scheme and are within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

Key Precedents

• State of U.P. v. Anurudh 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40 — Supreme Court held that the High Court's directions in a bail matter mandating scientific age determination under POCSO Act were beyond the scope of Section 439 CrPC; distinguished between constitutional power and statutory power; held that a court's jurisdiction under bail provisions is limited to adjudicating the question of release or detention.

Key Precedents

• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 — Held that the evidence of an approver must satisfy the twin test of reliability and sufficient corroboration; the High Court correctly found that PW12's evidence did not meet this test.
• Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 — Stands for the proposition that re-enactment evidence is not admissible if it amounts to testimonial compulsion.
• Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424 — Held that Article 20(3) protects against any form of testimonial compulsion, including re-enactment that reveals personal knowledge.

Key Precedents

• Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 800 — Held that motive is relevant but not conclusive; absence of motive may weigh in favour of the accused but does not automatically lead to acquittal when other evidence is sufficient.
• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 — Held that approver evidence must be corroborated, but the corroboration need not be on every detail; material corroboration is sufficient.
• Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 — Stands for the proposition that re-enactment evidence is admissible (though noted as possibly per incuriam).

Key Precedents

• Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 — Constitution Bench affirmed the plenary nature of Article 142 powers, holding that prohibitions in ordinary laws cannot ipso facto act as limitations on constitutional powers.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231 — Constitution Bench held that Article 142 powers can be exercised to modulate statutory application consistent with constitutional values, as long as the order is not plainly and expressly barred by statutory provisions based on fundamental principles of public policy.
• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 — Constitution Bench held that Article 142 powers are curative and cannot be used to supplant substantive law, but can be exercised to balance equities and iron out creases.

Key Precedents

• Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 10 — Constitution Bench held that power under Article 142(1) cannot be exercised to make an order inconsistent with statutory provisions or substantive law.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231 — Constitution Bench held that exercise of Article 142 power is prohibited when the order is plainly and expressly barred by statutory provisions based on fundamental principles of public policy.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 — While affirming plenary nature of Article 142, this Court held that due regard must be had to statutory provisions founded on fundamental considerations of public policy.

Key Precedents

• Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 — Held that vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of recruitment rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules.
• Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala 2025 SCC OnLine SC 71 — Held that executive instructions issued under Article 162 have statutory force and bind the State government.
• Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 — Held that the decision not to fill up vacancies must be taken for bona fide reasons supported by appropriate reasons.

Key Precedents

• Raj Kumar v. State of H.P. (2023) 3 SCC 773 — Three-Judge Bench overruled Y.V. Rangaiah, holding that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be filled on the basis of law existing on the date they arose; the Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill vacancies under old rules.
• Union of India v. Somasundaram Viswanath (1989) 1 SCC 175 — Held that rules framed under Article 309 prevail over executive instructions issued under Article 162.
• Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910 — Held that for selection posts, promotion is not automatic based on ranking in the gradation list; merit is the primary consideration.

Key Precedents

• Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 5 SCC 403 — Held that under Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act, if the accusation is prima facie true, bail becomes absolutely impermissible; the legislative intent is that 'bail must be rejected as a rule.'
• Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10 — Held that K.A. Najeeb does not create a mechanical rule that mere passage of time automatically entitles an accused to bail; delay must be considered along with other factors.
• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1 — Held that the High Court had conducted a mini trial and reappreciated evidence at the bail stage, exceeding the limited scope of a bail petition.

Key Precedents

• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 — Three-Judge Bench held that statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and incarceration exceeds a substantial part of the sentence.
• Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P. (2024) 8 SCC 293 — Held that once timely trial is not possible and incarceration is significant, courts are ordinarily obligated to grant bail; K.A. Najeeb is binding on smaller Benches.
• Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 9 SCC 813 — Held that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime; the right to speedy trial is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.

Key Precedents

• Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande (1995) 3 SCC 413 — Held that a preliminary decree declares rights and liabilities leaving the actual result to be worked out in further proceedings; the final decree carries into fulfilment the preliminary decree.
• Bimal Kumar v. Shakuntala Debi (2012) 3 SCC 548 — Held that what is executable is a final decree and not a preliminary decree unless the final decree is a part of the preliminary decree.
• Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan (2022) 16 SCC 71 — Held that after passing a preliminary decree, the trial court must proceed to draw up a final decree; the suit comes to an end only when a final decree is drawn.

Key Precedents

• Bimal Kumar v. Shakuntala Debi (2012) 3 SCC 548 — Held that a decree may be both preliminary and final, and partly preliminary and partly final under Section 2(2) of the CPC.
• Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande (1995) 3 SCC 413 — Held that a final decree merely carries into fulfilment the preliminary decree.
• Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan (2022) 16 SCC 71 — Held that there is no need to file a separate application for final decree; the trial court should proceed suo motu.

Key Precedents

• State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 — Held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court must consider broad probabilities and total effect of evidence; if there is prima facie material, charge must be framed.
• Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 — Held that a place can be a private place yet be within public view if it is accessible to public gaze. The balcony and ground floor of a house on a street are accessible to public gaze.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — Held that quashing of FIR is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, only when the FIR does not disclose any offence on its face.

Key Precedents

• Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 — Established the distinction between 'public place' and 'place within public view', and held that a private place can be within public view if accessible to public gaze.
• Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 — Held that when the incident occurs within the four walls of a building and no member of the public is present, the requirement of 'place within public view' is not satisfied.
• Karuppudayar v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 215) — Reiterated that to be a place 'within public view', the place should be open where members of the public can witness or hear the utterance.

Key Precedents

• Prashant Bhushan (Contempt Matter), In re (2021) 1 SCC 745 — Held that a deliberate attack on the institution of judiciary cannot be wished away with apologies; apology must be bona fide and sincere.
• Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P. (2016) 8 SCC 335 — Held that upon conviction for contempt, an advocate is automatically disqualified from practicing for two years under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Yatin Narendra Oza v. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti (2016) 15 SCC 236 — The Supreme Court accepted the Appellant's apology in 2016 but cautioned that 'the apology and repentance shall see the appellant in a different incarnation.' The Appellant failed to reform.

Key Precedents

• Yatin Narendra Oza v. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti (2016) 15 SCC 236 — This Court accepted the Appellant's unconditional apology in 2016 contempt proceedings, observing that 'the regret, the apology and repentance shall see the appellant in a different incarnation.'
• Prashant Bhushan (Contempt Matter), In re (2021) 1 SCC 745 — Distinguishable because in that case the contemnor justified his statements and did not tender an unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity.
• Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P. (2016) 8 SCC 335 — The Appellant submits that the automatic disqualification under Section 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961 is not mandatory; the court has discretion to suspend the conviction.

Key Precedents

• Hind Charitable Trust v. Union of India, order dated 24 September 2014 — This Court directed that fees shall be at Government rates 'till the students so admitted pass out', which the Trust has complied with.

Key Precedents

• Hind Charitable Trust v. Union of India, W.P.(Civil) No. 469 of 2014 (order dated 18 September 2014) — The Supreme Court directed that students admitted pursuant to the order shall pay fees at Government rates 'till the students so admitted pass out', indicating the interim arrangement was intended to cover the entire course duration.
• Hind Charitable Trust v. Union of India, order dated 24 September 2014 — Clarified that fees chargeable shall be at the same rates as applicable to Government medical colleges 'till the students so admitted pass out'.

Key Precedents

• Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 8 SCR 133 — Held that the evidence of a partisan witness must be carefully weighed but not mechanically rejected, and that a relative of the deceased is a natural witness.
• Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC 627 — Held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not completely effaced and can be accepted to the extent it is found dependable.
• State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73 — Held that minor discrepancies in medical evidence do not destroy the prosecution case if the core finding is consistent.

Key Precedents

• Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 8 SCR 133 — Held that while the evidence of a partisan or interested witness cannot be mechanically rejected, the court must be very careful in weighing such evidence.
• Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 591 — Held that a witness with a strong interest in the result should not be weighed on the same scales as a disinterested witness, as bias may unconsciously affect testimony.
• Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey (2022) 12 SCC 657 — Held that a postmortem report is not substantive evidence; the doctor's statement in court alone is substantive, and discrepancies diminish evidentiary value.

Key Precedents

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 — Established that the voter's right to know the antecedents of candidates is fundamental to democracy and is embedded in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
• Krishnamoorthy v. Shivakumar (2015) 14 SCC 58 — Held that non-furnishing of information pertaining to criminal antecedents causes undue influence and impedes the free exercise of electoral right, and the question whether the election was materially affected would not arise.
• Pritam Singh v. State (1950 INSC 9) — Established that Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and will be exercised only in special or exceptional cases; no such case exists here.

Key Precedents

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 — Established the voter's right to know antecedents of candidates, but the information must be relevant and material to the voter's decision.
• Krishnamoorthy v. Shivakumar (2015) 14 SCC 58 — Relied upon by the respondents, but distinguishable because that case involved serious IPC offences, not a technical NI Act offence.
• Pritam Singh v. State (1950 INSC 9) — Established the discretionary nature of Article 136 of the Constitution, which should be exercised in favour of the petitioner given the exceptional circumstances.

Key Precedents

• Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 — Supports the proposition that where parties have voluntarily settled and consent to divorce, the waiting period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be waived.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) — Supports the exercise of Article 142 powers in matrimonial settlements.

Key Precedents

• Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 — Supreme Court held that the waiting period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directory, not mandatory, and can be waived by the court where the parties have settled all disputes and there is no possibility of reconciliation.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) — Supreme Court exercised power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve marriage by mutual consent without waiting period where parties had settled all claims.

Key Precedents

• Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 — Supreme Court held that the concept of shared household requires the woman to have lived there with the consent of the respondent; consent can be withdrawn.
• S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (2021) 15 SCC 730 — Supreme Court held that while the right to reside is important, courts must balance the rights of all parties, including senior citizens.

Key Precedents

• Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 — Supreme Court held that the concept of shared household includes the parental home of the husband or father, and a daughter has the right to reside there even without legal title.
• S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (2021) 15 SCC 730 — Supreme Court held that the right to reside in shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act is enforceable even against parents-in-law.
• Vimlesh v. State of U.P. (2020) 6 ADJ 781 — Allahabad High Court held that an unmarried daughter cannot be evicted from the shared household by her parents under the Senior Citizens Act when she is in a domestic relationship.

Key Precedents

• Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 — Held that cruelty depends on the type of life the parties are accustomed to and their social conditions; what is cruelty in one case may not be in another.
• N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 — Held that the court must consider the context and the conduct of both parties when determining cruelty.

Key Precedents

• N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 — Established that under pre-1976 Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cruelty required proof of reasonable apprehension of harm or injury; the deletion of these words in Section 13(1)(i-a) lowered the threshold.
• Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 — Held that intention is not a necessary element of cruelty, and the categories of cruelty are not closed; each case depends on its own facts including social status and profession.
• Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr S.P. Trivedi (1993) 4 SCC 232 — Held that when mutual allegations are made and the marriage is dead, continuing litigation is an exercise in futility.

Key Precedents

• Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi (2001) 4 SCC 250 — Held that matrimonial matters must be decided on their own facts and that irretrievable breakdown should not be applied as a straitjacket formula for grant of divorce.
• N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 — Held that the petitioner must prove cruelty, and that the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, but the conduct must be such as to cause reasonable apprehension of harm or injury.

Key Precedents

• V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 — Established that mental cruelty is conduct inflicting such mental pain that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together, and it is not necessary to prove injury to health.
• Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706 — Held that the cumulative effect of facts and circumstances must be considered, not isolated instances, and that a feeling of anguish and disappointment must be appreciated from attending facts.
• A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar (2005) 2 SCC 22 — Held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground by itself but can be borne in mind while determining whether the alleged grounds are made out.

Key Precedents

• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994 INSC 170) — Recognises that arrest must be justified with reasons, but does not require written grounds; the reasons can be recorded in the police diary as required by Section 47(2) of the BNSS 2023.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014 INSC 463) — Requires police to follow procedural safeguards but does not mandate written grounds of arrest for the arrestee; it focuses on the notice to be given before arrest for certain offences.

Key Precedents

• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994 INSC 170) — Established that arrest cannot be made in a routine manner and causes irreversible damage to reputation and self-esteem; the power to arrest must be exercised cautiously with recorded reasons.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014 INSC 463) — Held that arrest results in embarrassment, restricts freedom, leaves permanent scars, and that police must follow procedural safeguards before arresting for offences punishable with less than seven years.
• D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 — Laid down detailed requirements for arrest and detention, including the obligation to inform the arrestee of his rights and to record grounds of arrest in writing.

Key Precedents

• Davies Jenkins & Co. Ltd. v. Davies (1968) AC 1097 — House of Lords decision holding that the word 'where' in statutes is often used as a conditional conjunction meaning 'if' or 'whenever', not as a reference to a physical place.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 — The foundational case establishing the Vishaka Guidelines, which the POSH Act was enacted to codify; emphasises that the objective is to provide a safe workplace free from sexual harassment.

Key Precedents

• Davies Jenkins & Co. Ltd. v. Davies (1968) AC 1097 — Although cited by the respondent, this case supports the petitioner because it requires careful attention to the grammatical and contextual meaning of 'where'; here, the context of Section 11 being a procedural provision indicates that 'where' introduces the forum, not a mere condition.

Key Precedents

• Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972 INSC 134) — Cited by the State but actually supports the respondent because the case holds that courts must evaluate whether the discrepancy affects the substratum; here, the High Court found that the discrepancies went to the root of the prosecution case.
• K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003) 1 SCC 217 — Held that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is rebuttable and if the accused can show that the death was accidental or that there was no demand, the presumption stands discharged.

Key Precedents

• Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972 INSC 134) — Established that minor discrepancies or contradictions in witness statements do not warrant discarding the entire prosecution evidence unless they affect the substratum of the case.
• Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633 — Held that the phrase 'soon before death' in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 requires that the cruelty or harassment should have a proximate connection with the death, but does not require a fixed time gap; each case depends on its facts.

Key Precedents

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium case) (1997) 2 SCC 353 — Established that industrial development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive; the Court balanced heritage conservation with economic activity by imposing proportionate pollution control measures rather than shutting down all industry.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 — While establishing the precautionary principle, this Court also held that the principle must be applied in a reasoned, proportionate manner, not as a license for absolute prohibition without evidence.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 324 — Recognised that sustainable development requires integration of conservation and development, and that courts should rely on expert committees for complex environmental fact-finding.

Key Precedents

• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 — Established the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as part of Indian environmental jurisprudence, requiring courts to err on the side of conservation where there is scientific uncertainty about environmental harm.
• A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718 — Affirmed that the precautionary principle places the burden of proof on the industrial developer to show that their activity will not cause irreversible environmental harm.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 324 — Held that conservation of forests and wildlife is not subordinate to development needs, and that the principle of sustainable development requires integration of environmental concerns into all development decisions.

Key Precedents

• Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narian Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 — Supports that even without express words, exclusion of the Limitation Act can be implied from the scheme of the special law where it provides a complete and exhaustive limitation mechanism.
• State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187 — Held that where a special statute provides for its own limitation and the consequences of delay, the general Limitation Act does not apply by necessary implication.

Key Precedents

• Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narian Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 — Established that exclusion of Section 5 requires express or clearly implied peremptory language such as 'shall be dismissed', which is absent in Section 74 of the 2013 Act.
• Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023) 10 SCC 531 — Held that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must be adopted in condoning delays by State instrumentalities, and High Courts should avoid pedantry.