Wednesday, 7 November 2012

N to Z



Non application of mind –
(2007) 6 SCC 329, Para 86;
(2008) 14 SCC 186, Para 54.


Nullity of decree –
(1996) 4 SCC 178;
AIR 2005 Cal 28, Para 37.


Natural import –of words is that which utterance promptly and uniformly suggests to the mind that which common use has affixed to them;




Natural Law –
(1985) 3 SCC 398, Para 72; a law which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that without observing its maxims the peace and happiness of the society cannot be preserved;



Oppression –
AIR 1981 SC 1298, 1321;
AIR 2005 SC 809;
(2002) 100 Com Cas 193, 196 (AP);
AIR 1962 Ori 202, 215;
(1966) 36 Com Cas 566;
(2006) 7 SCC 613, Para 41.


Offence – Section 3(38) of General Clauses Act 1897 –
(2006) 4 SCC 278, Paras 29, 30;
(1996) 2 SCC 471, Para 13;
(1997) 2 SCC 699, Para 8;
(2000) 8 SCC 131;
(2001) 2 SCC 17, Para 18;
AIR (Vol.29) 1932 Bom 610;
AIR 1958 Cal 682;
AIR 1969 Del 304;
SC 143 Oudh LBR (1893-1900) 315 : 10 Cal 109 (Pg.4710);
12 CrLJ 405;
AIR 1958 SC 993, 997;
(1991) 2 SLR MP (406);
(1978) 1 APLJ 266.

Offence, offend, Punish, Punishable, illegal
(2006) 4 SCC 278, Para 29



Obligation –
Includes every duty enforceable by law – section 2(a) of Specific Relief Act, 1963;



Powers –
….is an ability to do;
AIR 1978 SC 78;
(2007) 3 SCC 184, Para 465;
AIR 1975 All 113;
AIR 1990 SC 1031;
Abuse of – AIR 1936 Rang 11;
AIR 1962 SC 694;



Prejudice –
injurious effect; impairment of a claim;
AIR 1956 SC 116;


Prejudicial to the interests of the revenue –
AIR 2000 SC 1855;
(2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj);



Prima facie –
….which means the first impression that can be had from the contents of the face of the document; would indicate there is no possibility of an alternative view –
AIR 1953 Ori 240;
AIR 1993 Del 356;



Prudence –
….means that degree of care required by the exigencies or circumstances under which it is to be exercised;



Presume –
in law means to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming – (1996) 4 SCC 659, Para 31;

a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts and omissions;



Presumption –
a legal or factual assumptions drawn from existence of certain facts; a probable inference which common sense draws from circumstances usually occurring in such cases;
AIR 1962 SC 1052;
(1998) 7 SCC 337, Para 5;
AIR 2001 SC 318 : (2001) 1 SCC 691, Para 17;
(2004) 8 SCC 270, Para 35;
(2004) 4 SCC 399, Para 16;
AIR 2006 SC 3366, Para 43;
(2009) 2 SCC 513, Para 15;

A presumption of fact is a logical argument from a fact to a fact;



Public Policy –
(1991) 3 SCC 67;
(2005) 12 SCC 77, Para 45;

The principles and matters which the Legislatures and the Courts broadly regard as being of fundamental concern to the State and the whole Society; AIR 1959 SC 781;
(2006) 6 SCC 351, Para 17, 19;
(2006) 11 SCC 181, Para 60;
AIR 1977 All 499;
AIR 2003 Ker 61, Para 18;
(1974) 2 SCC 472, Para 28;
(2003) 5 SCC 705, Para 31;
(2006) 4 SCC 445, Para 13;
(2005) 12 SCC 77, Para 38;



Public Order –
Any restriction that helps to maintain public order or prevents an apprehension of public disorder is in the interest of public order. A restriction that has nothing to do with the maintenance of public order, ie. One that does not help in the maintenance of public order or does not avert a threat to public order, cannot be said to be in the interest of the Public order. Ram Nandan versus State –
AIR 1959 All 101, 104 (FB) [COI Art. 19(2)]

Public disorder –
(2004) 7 SCC 467, Para 9.


Prohibition –
AIR 1934 Cal 725;
(1996) 10 JT 402;
AIR 1962 SC 1893.


Prosecution –
AIR 1954 SC 375;
(2001) 8 SCC 289, Para 30;
(2006) 13 SCC 252, Paras 29, 30;
47 Bom LR 304;
49 CLJ 502;
AIR 1928 Cal 691;
AIR 1957 Mad 646, 652;
AIR 1958 Pat 329;
AIR 1953 Cal 316.


Proved –
AIR 1963 SC 1728;
(1988) 4 SCC 302;
AIR 1963 All 161;
48 Bom LR 746;
AIR 1965 Mys 102;
A 1970 M 91;
A 1970 A 51, 82 FB – Justice BEG.


Presume –
(1996) 4 SCC 659, Para 31.


Public and Private trusts –
1 MLJ (SC) 28 : 1959 SCJ 1173.



Public document –
AIR 1961 SC 1655;
AIR 1972 SC 608;
AIR 2009 Mad 51, Para 11;
AIR 1964 Pat 45.


Public duty –
AIR 1998 SC 2120;
AIR 1976 SC 789.


Public function –
AIR 2005 SC 3202, Para 11;
(2005) 4 SCC 649, Paras 140, 143.


Public good –
AIR 1958 MP 216.


Public health –
(2006) 9 SCC 90, Para 32.


Public interest –
(2009) 6 SCC 171, Para 67;
AIR 1983 Del 445;
(1977) 109 ITR 177 (Guj);
AIR 2010 MP 40, Para 11;
(2003) 5 SCC 437;
AIR 2006 Mad 353, 365.


PILs –
(2006) 6 SCC 180, Para 14.


Public nuisance –
AIR 1958 MP 350, 351;
AIR 1959 Raj 44;
AIR 1972 Raj 103, 110; Tate & Lyle versus GLC – (1983) 1 AC 509.

Public order and Law & order –
AIR 1972 SC 1656, 1659;
AIR 1972 SC 1749;
AIR 1972 SC 2259, 2260-61;
AIR 2008 SC 2096, Para 14;
(2006) 1 SCC 294, Para 14.


Principal sum adjudged –
AIR 1990 All 218;
(1999) Comp Cases 423, 427-28 (HP);
(1996) 13 SCC 1990 BoB versus Jaganmata Pigments & Chemicals;
(2001) 1 Punj LR 159 (P&H).



Principled reasoning –
(2009) 6 SCC 498, Para 118.


Perverse –
(2001) 1 SCC 501, Para 14;
AIR 1994 SC 1341;
AIR 1966 Cal 31, 42;
(1995) 2 MLJ 108;
AIR 1977 Kar 58, 60.


Preponderance of probabilities –
AIR 1970 All 51, 90 (FB) (Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act)




Quo Warranto –
(2009) 7 SCC 1, Paras 131, 132, 135;
AIR 1965 SC 491;
(1978) An WR 269;
1978 MPLJ 14;
(2001) 7 SCC 231, Paras 79, 80.



Rules cannot be equated with Statutes –
(2000) 2 SCC 536.

Rule of Law –
AIR 1967 SC 1427, 1434;
AIR 1982 SC 1325, 1326,
JT (1996) 9 SC 466;
(2006) 5 SCC 1, Paras 3, 4, 21;
AIR 1956 Madh B 163.



Review –
(1990) Supp SCC 420;
JT 1993 (5) SC 27;
1998 ECT 8 (Guj);
(2000) 6 SCC 224, Para 52;
(2005) 2 SCC 334, Para 13;
(2006) 4 SCC 78, Para 13;
AIR 1964 SC 1372;
(2000) 3 SCC 676, Para 7;
AIR 1976 SC 1545.


Revisional jurisdiction –
(1980) 4 SCC 259, Para 2.


Rape –
AIR 2010 SC 1, Para 26;
(2006) 3 SCC 771.


Reckless –
(2008) 1 SCC 791, Para 13;
AIR 1980 Cal 282;


Refusal –
AIR 2008 NOC 2859 Ker;
AIR 1994 SC 200.


Robbery –
(2001) 10 SCC 340, Para 23;
(2008) 3 SCC 94, Para 10.


Res ipsa loqiotor / Negligence –
(2000) 7 SCC 72, Para 8.


Restitution – Section 144 CPC –
AIR 1985 SC 39, 46;
(2003) 8 SCC 648, Para 26.


Reason –
is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless – JT 2003 Supp 2 SC 354;
(2008) 14 SCC 208, Para 19;
(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC);
JT 1992 (6) SC 94;
AIR 1967 SC 295;
AIR 1967 SC 523;
AIR 1971 SC 2451;
AIR 1994 SC 2663;
AIR 2004 SC 3229;
(2008) 4 SCC 144, Para 32;
AIR 1966 Goa 23;
(2005) 276 ITR 456 (Sikkim);
AIR 1974 SC 87;
AIR 1954 SC 648;


Reasonable –
(2009) 5 SCC 608, Para 21;
AIR 1987 SC 2316;
(1998) 3 SCC 341, Para 11, 12;
AIR 1996 Gau 103;
AIR 1972 Bom 46;


Reasonable and probable cause –
AIR 1980 Pat 267;
AIR 2001 Raj 14, Para 15;
AIR 1989 Ker 83;


Reasonable care –
AIR 1926 Cal 916;

Implies the converse of negligence;

is that care and foresight which men of ordinary prudence are accustomed to employ and which they probably would have employed under the circumstances of the case at hand;

Reasonable care is akin to ordinary care;



Reasonable doubt
is the doubt which makes you hesitate to convict the accused;
AIR 1979 SC 387;
AIR 1988 SC 2152;
(2003) 12 SCC 395, Para 24;
(2003) 7 SCC 643, Para 20;


Reasonable grounds –
(2007) 1 SCC 242, Para 13;
(2007) 7 SCC 798, Para 7;
(2004) 3 SCC 549, Para 7;


Reasonable grounds for believing –
(2001) 4 SCC 280, Para 8;


Reasonable man –
is careful, moral, prudent, calculating, law abiding;
AIR 2001 SC 24;

are those who think and reason intelligently; is a person having the power of self control to be expected of an ordinary person of the age; a person exercising those qualities of attention, knowledge and intelligence and judgment, which requires of its members for the protection of their own interests and the interests of others; he can read between the lines; read in an implication more readily than a lawyer;



Reasonable Notice – Public Service –
Khem Chand versus Union of India – AIR 1958 SC 300;
AIR 1962 SC 1344;


Reasonable time –
(2002) 1 SCC 134, Para 13;
(2007) 1 SCC 584, Para 36;


Reasonableness –
(1980) 4 SCC 1;
(1981) 4 SCC 675, Para 6;
AIR 1991 SC 1153;
(2006) 10 SCC 645;
(2003) 6 SCC 315


Reckless –
Intention cannot exist without foresight but foresight can exist without intention, for, a man may foresee the possible or probable consequences of his conduct and yet not desire them to occur; none the less if he persists on his conduct, he knowingly the runs the risk of bringing about the unwished result. To describe this state of mind, the word reckless is most appropriate; (2008) 1 SCC 791, Para 13;
AIR 2008 SC 3062, Para 13;

…is an indifference to the rights of others;

Reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of a defamatory statement by a person who is highly aware of its probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth; or when there are obvious reasons to doubt its veracity and accuracy of a source –
Garrison versus Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964) 2;

A reckless lack of attention to the truth that misleads or deceives;

Reckless disregard of the consequences; gross carelessness; but does not involve dishonesty; is often equated with an intention to do the act; high degree of carelessness; involves a grave risk to others whether the doer realizes it or not;


Doctrine of Res Judicata –
(2004) 7 SCC 482, Para 10

Estoppel and Res Judicata –
Sundarbai versus Devaji Deshpande – AIR 1954 SC 82;
Bhanu Kumar Jain versus Archana Kumar – (2005) 1 SCC 787, Para 31;
State of UP versus Nawab Hussain – (1977) 2 SCC 806, Para 3;

Res judicata –
AIR 1925 PC 34;
1973 Andh WR 322, 324;
AIR 1960 Ori 197 (FB);
AIR 1952 All 206;
(1906) 28 All 644;
(1911) 33 All 264 (274) (PC);

Res judicata –
Deva Ram versus Ishwar Chand – (1995) 6 SCALE 18;
AIR 1989 SC 2240;

Res Judicata – Constructive – vis a vis Withdrawal of Suit without leave of the Court – Maintainability of fresh Suit – permissible – (2008) 14 SCC 58, Paras 53, 61 to 66;

Res Judicata always a mixed question of fact and law
(2008) 14 SCC 58, Para 53


Res Judicata – (2012) 10 SCC 290B



Standard of Proof –
(1998) 4 SCC 302;
AIR 1963 SC 1723.


Sale –
AIR 2005 SC 3336;
AIR 2005 Guj 13, Para 9.6A;



Substance of the deposition (Section 264 of CrPC, 1973) –
AIR 1960 Bom 107;
AIR 1948 Sind 59;


Substantial question of law
(2005) 7 SCC 60, Paras 5, 6

Finding of fact and Substantial question of law
(2011) 7 SCC 289 – Paras 4, 13 to 15;
(2011) 1 SCC 673, Paras 19, 23
AIR 2011 AP 172, Para 18, 20


Sufficient evidence –
That amount of proof which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind beyond reasonable doubt;


Sufficient ground in section 203 of CrPC –
(2002) 1 SCC 241, Para 15;



Suppression of fact –
(2007) 6 SCC 329, Para 71;
AIR 1967 Goa 169;

…is akin to suggestion of falsity;
AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat);

Where there is an obligation to speak, a failure to speak will constitute the suppression; but where there is no obligation to speak, silence cannot be termed as suppression;
(1995) 78 ELT 401 (SC);
(2007) 8 SCC 89, Para 24;
(2004) 7 SCC 166, Para 13;


Superintendence –
The act of superintending, care and oversight, for the purpose of direction and with authority to direct; connote supervision;
AIR 1980 SC 326;


Suspicion –
being imagination of the existence of something without proof, or upon very light evidence or no evidence at all;



Theft –
1965 All LJ 214.


TRIAL –
(2005) 4 SCC 480, Para 13;
(2003) 4 SCC 642, Para 60;
(1998) 5 SCC 69, Para 7.


Trespass –
No defendant in an action for trespass can plead that the right of possession is outstanding in some third person, as against the fact of possession in the Plaintiff – Salmond on the Law of Torts;

in its largest and most extensive sense, signifies any transgression or offence, against the law of nature, of society, or of country, in which we live; whether it relates to man’s person or his property;
(2001) 6 SCC 512, Para 24, 25;

No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well, for his defence against injury and violence;



Transfer –
(2008) 14 SCC 517, Para 11;
(2000) 6 SCC 12, Para 65;
AIR 1965 SC 868;
AIR 1996 SC 700;
AIR 1997 SC 1348;
(2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC);
AIR 2007 Ker 91, Para 21;
AIR 1955 SC 376;
AIR 1974 SC 1728;
AIR 1993 Bom 30;
AIR 1965 AP 95;
(2000) 8 SCC 249;
AIR 2004 SC 5123;
(2001) 1 SCC 284, Para 9;
(1978) 3 SCC 248, Para 8;
(2004) 4 SCC 794, Para 9;





Vest –
Where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created; an absolute or indefeasible right –
(2004) 1 SCC 663;
(1996) 5 SCC 206, Para 8;


Vagueness –
Indefiniteness, a Statute or regulation is void for vagueness that imposes penalty without giving a reasonable person of clear idea of the sort of the conduct that is prohibited;
(1979) 4 SCC 370;


Void –
(1995) Supp 3 SCC 376;
AIR 1996 SC 1669;
AIR 2001 SC 2552;
(2002) 9 SCC 28, Para 50;
AIR 2004 SC 4377;
AIR 1966 ker 212 (FB);
(2004) 1 SCC 287, Para 6;



Unjust enrichment –
(2003) 3 SCC 559, Para 6.
(2004) 4 SCC 34, Paras 8, 9;
(2005) 3 SCC 738, Paras 31, 32;
(2007) 8 SCC 153, Para 3.




Vague –
AIR 1951 SC 157;
AIR 1968 Ori 109, 111, 112;
AIR 1968 Ori 148, 154;
(1998) 8 SCC 315, Paras 9 to 11;
(1979) 4 SCC 370.


Voluntarily –
(2002) 5 SCC 234;
AIR 1991 Ori 151;
(2000) 1 SCC 498, Para 18;
(2003) 8 SCC 461, Para 23;





Wanton – Rollin M Perkins & Ronald N Boyce – Criminal law 879-80 (3rd Edn 1982).


Will – Mutual Will –
AIR 1986 SC 1707, Para 55;


Willful –
a deliberate conduct of a person who is a free agent knows what he is doing and intends to do what he is doing – (2000) 3 SCC 282, Para 9;
AIR 1988 Ori 150;

Intentional, deliberate and conscious with full knowledge of legal consequences flowing from it – (2006) 1 SCC 275, Para 10;
(2006) 6 SCC 482, Para 20;


Willful abstention from inquiry and search;
(1995) Supp 4 SCC 238;
(1977) 2 MLJ 8;
AIR 2009 SC 1314, Para 23;
(1982) 86 Cal WN 401 (FB);
(2007) 10 SCC 337, Para 12;
AIR 1927 Nag 34;
AIR 1926 All 394;
(1957) 8 STC 244 All;



Willful blindness –
Deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoings despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence. Involves conscious avoidance of truth and gives rise to an inference of knowledge of the crime in question;


Wrong –
A violation, transgression, infringement of law; invasion of right;
AIR 1977 SC 2218;
(1984) 4 SCC 90, Para 5;
AIR 2009 Bom 151, Para 7;
AIR 2009 NOC 2286 Ker


Wrongful –
AIR 1998 SC 3085;
(1999) 2 SCC 617, Para 3;
AIR 1923 Nag 146;


Wrongful occupation –
(1998) 7 SCC 184, Para 10;


Wrongful gain/ loss –
AIR 1957 SC 369;


Witnesses – Interested witnesses –
The person concerned must have a some direct interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he has some grudge against the accused or for some other reason.
Damu Santha versus the State – (1982) 53 CLT 470;

a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as interested witness.
Dalbit Kaur versus State of Punjab – AIR 1977 SC 472;
Kartik Malhar versus State of Bihar – (1996) 1 SCC 614, Para 15;
(2007) 14 SCC 150, Para 29;
Ashok Kumar Choudhary versus State of Bihar– (2008) 12 SCC 173, Para 8;

where there is nothing on record to show that any enmity or motive on the part of the witness to speak against the accused, the witnesses cannot be termed as interested witnesses –
Nisar Ahmed Fajmohmed Kaji versus State of Gujrat – (1997) 6 Scale 686;

Merely because witnesses were friendly with the deceased does not make them interested witnesses. Accused has to place the material of interestedness of the witnesses to prove his plea –
Bihari Nath Goswami versus Shiv Kumar Singh – (2004) 9 SCC 186 (Section 118 Indian Evidence Act)


No comments:

Post a Comment