Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)Article 8 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 30 in The Punjab Excise Act, 1914 [Entire Act]
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 March, 1966
(i) Roshan Deen v Preeti Lal27; (ii)
Dwarka Nath v ITO, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur 28; (iii) Naresh Shridhar
Nirajkar v State of Maharashtra29; and (iv) M V Elisabeth v Harwan
Investment and Trading (P) Ltd.30
13 These principles which emerge from the precedent are well-settled.
Equally the exercise of all powers by a constitutional court must ensure justice
under and in accordance with law.
M.V. Elisabeth And Ors vs Harwan Investment And Trading Pvt. ... on 26 February, 1992
(i) Roshan Deen v Preeti Lal27; (ii)
Dwarka Nath v ITO, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur 28; (iii) Naresh Shridhar
Nirajkar v State of Maharashtra29; and (iv) M V Elisabeth v Harwan
Investment and Trading (P) Ltd.30
13 These principles which emerge from the precedent are well-settled.
Equally the exercise of all powers by a constitutional court must ensure justice
under and in accordance with law.
Bhagwan Dass vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 9 May, 2011
“17…This is a free and democratic country, and once a
person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever
he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of
such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they
can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or
the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or
instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who
undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We,
therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities
throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who
is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage
with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not
harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of
violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or
commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is
taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police
against such persons and further stern action is taken against
such persons as provided by law.”
Reiterating these principles in Bhagwan Dass v State (NCT OF DELHI)34, this
Court adverted to the social evil of honour killings as being but a reflection of a
feudal mindset which is a slur on the nation.
Soni Gerry vs Gerry Douglas on 5 January, 2018
In a more recent decision of a three judge Bench in Soni Gerry v Gerry
Douglas35, this Court dealt with a case where the daughter of the appellant
and respondent, who was a major had expressed a desire to reside in Kuwait,
where she was pursuing her education, with her father. This Court observed
thus:
Kanu Sanyal vs District Magistrate, Darjeeijng & Ors on 11 September, 1973
10. It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the
age of majority in an individual's life has its own significance.
She/He is entitled to make her/his choice. The courts cannot,
as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens
patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the
law permits and the court should not assume the role of a
super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the
mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any
reservation.”
These principles emerge from a succession of judicial decisions. Fundamental
to them is the judgment of a Constitution bench of this Court in Kanu Sanyal v
District Magistrate, Darjeeling36.
State Of Orissa vs Ram Chandra Dev & Anr on 25 November, 1963
“In the ordinary way the Supreme Court, as a superior court
of record, exercise the full plenitude of judicial power in all
matters concerning the general administration of justice within
its territorial limits, and enjoys unrestricted and unlimited
powers in all matters of substantive law, both civil and
criminal, except insofar as that has been taken away in
unequivocal terms by statutory enactment. The term “inherent
jurisdiction” is not used in contradistinction to the jurisdiction
of the court exercisable at common law or conferred on it by
statute or rules of court, for the court may exercise its
inherent jurisdiction even in respect of matters which are
regulated by statute or rule of court. The jurisdiction of the
court which is comprised within the term “inherent” is that
which enables it to fulfil itself, properly and effectively, as a
court of law.”
Dealing with the ambit of the powers under Article 226, Gajendragadkar, CJ in
State of Orissa v Ram Chandra Dev and Mohan Prasad Singh Deo 24
observed thus: