Interesting Cases

As a lawyer, practicing primarily in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, I have assisted in a few interesting cases . The most interesting of them, in terms of the law decided, are as under:

M. Siddiq v. Mahant Sudesh Das & Ors., Civil Appeal 10866-67/2010, various citations.

I second chaired Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel. I was also a researcher, to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Counsel, in the initial stages of the preparations for final arguments, before being reassigned to Ms. Arora. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India heard the final arguments for 40 days straight. A crisp bulleted summary of the Judgment can be found here.

The conflict between the judgments rendered in State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1 and Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213 referred to a 9 Judge Bench. The primary issue was whether the afforestation activities of the State Govt. would fall within the definition of Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Shayara Bano Vs Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1

The case where the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nariman laid down the test of manifest arbitrariness. The action of Triple Talaq (Instant divorce by the Husband by the saying the word 'Talaq' thrice in succession, in an Islamic marriage) was deemed to be non est. 

Concerned whether or not HIV affected children, were to be included  as members of a 'disadvantaged group' under a Notification issued by the appropriate government under S. 2(d) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Concerned the classification of; and definition of ‘Forest Produce’ in the Forest Act, 1927. The judgment modified earlier interim orders that greatly benefited the State of UP in the collection of Transit Fee. 

A murder conviction appeal arising from death of Francesco Montis, an Italian tourist, in room no: 409 of Hotel Buddha at Varanasi.  The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court were set aside due to improper appreciation of evidence and gap in chain of circumstances. 

Laid down that State Law/Statute on Arbitration will prevail over the Central Act. The reference in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495) was answered [2 JJs inter bench divergence]. Held that Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board, (2011) 13 SCC 261 was per incuriam insofar as it held that the M.P Act stands implied repealed by the Central Act