Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Fill in the blanks: Choose the pair of words that complete the sentence to make logical sense.
A bench headed by _________ quashed allocation of 2014 ______ as _____.
Options
Justice H L Dattu, coal blocks, illegal and arbitrary
justice R. M. Lodha, coal blocks, illegal and arbitrary
Justice T. S. Thakur, licenses, illegal and arbitrary
None of the above.
Advertisements
Solution
justice R. M. Lodha, coal blocks, illegal and arbitrary
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
In this Question, the problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules:
A. A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor's property the age of majority is twenty-one.
B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that (he minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Facts Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged I8 that she should sell her land to him. Bandita's mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming that Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.
In order to defend the sale, Bandita will need to show that
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
Suppose a situation arises where a recusal by a Judge is used as a means to allow a party to choose its own bench, will it be axiomatic from the passage that such recusal is proper, morally or/and constitutionally?
Which Amendment Act introduced changes in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution?
By which one of the following constitutional amendments Delhi has become National Capital Region (NCR)?
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): Home Ministry is the nodal agency for citizenship of any person.
Reason (R): Home Ministry has to maintain the internal security, census, law and order and other safety concerns for India.
Who was the first Speaker of Lok Sabha?
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): United judiciary is the function of unitary feature.
Reason (R): USA judiciary is the example of strong federation.
In which year the Finance Commission of India was formed?
Who among the following conferred with the special responsibility law and order in the state of Arunachal Pradesh?
How many duties are provided under Part-IV of the Constitution?
