Case Analysis

Citation: AIR 2000 SC 2773 Bench: M B Shah, J., S.N. Phukan, J. Introduction: “The LORD knows the thoughts of

The court in this case discusses whether the high court has the power to handover the investigation to CBI or whether reinvestigation and second FIR are maintainable in the case with the relevant provisions.

The court in this case discusses the constitutionality of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997

The court discusses section 14 of Companies Act, 2013, allows alterations to be made to the articles of the company which will allow a Company to convert from a Public Company to Private Company and vice versa, the section is conditional on the approval from the concerned Tribunal regarding such conversion of status of the company from a “Public” to a “Private” Company.

In this case, two cases were presented at the Supreme Court of India where the explanation sought was similar by both the cases. The parties to the respective suits sought the meaning and co-relation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, with certain relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

The case relates to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalizes all consensual sex among adults that includes homosexual sex as well. In this article, we will be critically analyzing this case and the decriminalizing of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

The judgement has proved to be highly important in understanding the value of tribunals in the current judicial system of India. Tribunals have been termed as quasi-judicial bodies that help in expediting a mater and disposing of it in the given period.

The present case deals with the problem of dowry in the country and the rights of an accused in a dowry case against him. The case deals with section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court in this case discusses that reasonableness and proportionality of a restriction is determined from the view point of the interest of the general public at large, and not from the point of view of the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed.

By way of this case, a celebrity’s endorsement contract was cancelled solely because of his nude photo scandal. The private life of a celebrity must not affect the contracts entered into by him in his professional capacity, if he is honouring the contracts as per the agreed terms.