delay in delivery of judgment sufficient to set it aside

I (2000) SLT 370
(Equivalent Citation:- I (2000) CLT 268 (SC), 2000(2) SRJ 215, 2000 AIR(SC)
775, 2000(1) Scale 146, 2000(1) Supreme 209, 2000(1) SCR 254, 2000(2) SCC
13, 2000(1) JT 266)
:BHAGWANDAS FATECHAND DASWANI & ORS. v. H.P.A. INTERNATIONAL & ORS.

Delay in Delivery of Judgment : Sufficient to Set Aside Judgment under
Appeal -

Appointment of ineligible candidate is void

State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 (Civil Appeal No. 6468 of 2012, decided on September 14, 2012):

Relaxation of eligibility criteria prescribed for post in question which stood vacated upon death of person who was employed on said post from family concerned on humanitarian grounds is impermissible. A person who does not possess requisite qualifications cannot even apply for recruitment since his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking of eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to a serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Moreover, such person cannot approach the court for any relief because he does not have enforceable right.

Urgency clause invocation - Land Acquisition

Urgency clause cannot be lightly invoked

2012 (9) SCC SCALE 3
Bharat Sewak Samaj v. Liet. Governor

When a ground is not considered, high court to reconsider the judgment

Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Syed Abdul Quader, 2012 (10) SCALE 233 (Civil Appeal No. 2232-2233 of 2002) dated Oct 9, 2012

Malice in law

Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, 2012 (2) SCC 407

Website / newspaper is secondary evidence

Samant N. Balkrishna v. V. George Fernandes, (1969) 3 SCC 238

Recall application be filed only by the lawyer who had argued the case and not by subsequent counsel

Recall application be filed only by the lawyer who had argued the case and not by subsequent counsel

2006 9 ADJ 427

Caveat - to be reported even after 90 day period

2006 (1) ADJ 618 (All)

Once a caveat is lodged in writ, stamp reporter is bound to make a report about filing of the caveat - not competent to ignore caveat on the ground that 90 day period has lapsed

Election Process & Court Interference

Where the election process has started, it must come to its logical conclusion and once it has come to its logical conclusion by declaration of result of the election, the aggrieved person may challenge the election by filing the election petition or civil suit in accordance with law and this Hon'ble Court may not ordinarily interfere with the election under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case law reported in A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1566 = 1998 (4) SCC 529 :: In Re: Umesh Shivappa Ambi & Others Vs. Angadi Shekara Basappa & Others, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1703 : In Re: K.K. Srivastava Vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, which has been relied upon and reiterated by this Hon'ble Court in the matter reported in (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1333 :In Re: Basant Prasad Srivastava & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another, C.O.M. Shiksha Prasar Samiti Sagwar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2008 (3) A.L.J. 329.

 

Judgments and Statute conflict

State of Maharashtra v. Kumari Tanuja, AIR 1999 SC 791 - where the state sought to overrule the high court judgment without altering or neutralising the legal basis thereof by producing relevant additional material, it was rightly held illegal by the high court.

Same in Haryana v. Karnal Cooperative Farmer's Society, (1993) 2 SCC 363