Right to Information Act - constitutionality

Constitutional validity of second schedule of the Right to Information Act 2005 (i.e. exclusion of certain organisation) relating to Enforcement Directorate is upheld.
[2011] 106 SCL 564, ESAB India v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate.

fraudulent conduct of business - mens rea

Application under Section 542/543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for fraudulent conduct of business - such allegation which is criminal nature in nature, it is necessary to prove that such an allegation which is criminal in nature, it is necessary to specifically plead and prove, and mens rea is required.
OL v. V. Selvaraj (Madras) SCL (mag) 56

Notice when complete

Notice is effective against the person to whom it is sent only when it reaches him

AIR 1996 SC 330

1998 92 Comp Cas 517 (Kar.)

UCP - Certificate of Posting

Subhash Chandra v. Bihar, 1995 Supp 1 SCC 325 - when some important communication is sent, the best way is to either lodge the same personally or send by RP and not by UCP


Shiv Kumar v. Haryana 1994 4 SCC 445 - it is not safe to decide a controversy at hand on the basis of the certificate of posting as it is not difficult to get such postal seals at any time.


LMS Ummu Saleema v. BB Gujral, AIR 1981 SC 1191, presumption in evidence act regarding sending of post is only a presumption that it has been delivered and not an inevitable conclusion

Imposition of Penalty - Discretion

Cabot International Capital Corporation v. SEBI, Appeal No. 36/2000 (Order dated May 04, 2001) - even if a violation (SEBI) is proved, to award a penalty is within the subjective satisfaction of the Adjudicating Officer.  See Bombay HC order dated March 3, 2004 in Appeal No. 7/2001 (SEBI v. Cabot...)

Judicial Discipline - Law of Precedents

Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, 2008 10 SCC 1
Mansukh Stock Broker . SEBI decided on January 10, 2011 (Appeal No. 194 of 2010)

vehicle not transferred on the date of accident, no insurable interest

Complainant is not entitled to insured sum because as on the date of accident the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant had any insurable interest in the vehicle. In terms of S 157 of the MV Act, the deemed transfer of insurance vehicle is limited to  third party risk and not to others.  NIA v. Chandrakant Bhujang Rao, II (2010) CPJ 170 (NC) (relying on Supreme Court  1996 (1) SCC 221.)