Precedential value of the case depends on context and facts

Precedents 

2006 1 SCC 368

2002 3 SCC 533

2003 1 SCC 289

Judgments not be read as Euclids theorem  

2003 11 SCC 584

2015 10 SCC 161

2016 3 SCC 762 

Every Offence is distinct and separate FIR is permissible

Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 210 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1233 at page 239

60. As regards the issue of a single offence, we are afraid that the fact situation of the matters under consideration would not permit to lend any credence to such a submission. Each individual deposit agreement shall have to be treated as a separate and individual transaction brought about by the allurement of the financial companies, since the parties are different, the amount of deposit is different as also the period for which the deposit was effected. It has all the characteristics of independent transactions and we do not see any compelling reason to hold it otherwise. The plea as raised also cannot have our concurrence.

Right to Legal Recourse

This Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan [(1997) 11 SCC 121] reiterated the oft-noted phraseology that judicial review is a basic structure of the Constitution and every citizen has a fundamental right to redress the perceived legal injury through judicial process. This Court went on to record:

"… the Constitutional Court, therefore, has a constitutional duty as a sentinel on the qui vive to enforce the right of a citizen when he approaches the court for perceived legal injury, provided he establishes that he has a right to remedy.…"

orders cannot be explained or supplemented by affidavit

 In Commsr of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji , AIR 1952 SC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

9. An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of the Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.

 

 In OPTO Circuits (India) Ltd. v. Axis Bank, (2021) 6 SCC 707 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the said law:

12. The action sought to be sustained should be with reference to the ontents of the impugned order/communication and the same cannot be justified by improving the same through the contention raised in the objection statement or affidavit filed before the Court. This has been succinctly laid down by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405] as follows : (SCC p. 417, para 8)

"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088] : (SCC p. 1095, para 9)

'9. … public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.'

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."

  Further, it has been held that "…When an order is passed by a statutory authority, the same must be supported either on the reasons stated therein or on the grounds available therefor in the record. A statutory authority cannot be permitted to support its order relying on or on the basis of the statements made in the affidavit dehors the order or for that matter dehors the records. [Paragraph 24, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627]

Abandonment of Plea of abatement

When does an insurance policy become 'effective'

RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. VERSUS JAYA WADHWANI 2024 INSC 10   

Issue: What would be the date from which the policy becomes effective; whether it would be the date on which the policy is issued or the date of the commencement mentioned in the policy or it would be the date of the issuance of the deposit receipt or cover note?

Judgment: Date of issuance of the policy would be the relevant date for all the purposes and not the date of proposal or the date of issuance of the receipt.  

The date of proposal cannot be treated to be the date of policy until and unless on the date of proposal, initial deposit as also the issuance of policy happens on the same date where, for example, the premium is paid in cash then, immediately, the policy could be issued. Merely, tendering a cheque may not be enough as till such time the cheque is encashed, the contract would not become effective. The drawer of the cheque may, at any time, after issuing, stop its payment or there may not be enough funds in the account of which the cheque is issued and there could be many other reasons for which the cheque could be returned without being encashed.

 

Meaning of "Set off"

 BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS,  CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3088-3089 OF 2020  

4. Set-off is given legal preference for three reasons. First, in economic terms, set-off is a form of security recognised in law. It is, however, not a security in a strict sense, but a right that enhances provision of credit and acts as a stimulus to trade and commerce by giving a degree of confidence to parties dealing with each other. Secondly, it helps reduce litigation, promotes economy of time and is an efficient method in resolving debt between parties. Thirdly, natural equity requires that cross-demands should compensate each other by deducting the lesser sum from the greater