MODUS GROUP

03/01/2025

Corporates getting benefits with reduction in income tax and Bank write offs.

Why should Salaried class bear that burden ?

We should raise our voice against tax Terrorism

28/10/2024

12/08/2024

40 Important Judgments that Transformed India: List of Cases

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959)
Berubari Union v. Unknown (1960)
Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
I. C. Golaknath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (1967)
Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973)
ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India (1980)
Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and others (1985)
Dr. D. C. Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others (1986)
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and others (1986)
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1989)
Indira Sawhney and others v. Union of India (1992)
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India (1997)
Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998)
Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others (2006)
M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India (2006)
Lily Thomas v. Union of India and others (2013)
T. S. R. Subramanian and others v. Union of India and others (2013)
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014)
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others (2016)
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another v. Union of India and others (2017)
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. the State of Kerala (2018)
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India (2018)
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and others (2020)
Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora and others (2020)
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India (2020)
Laxmibai Chandaragi and another v. State of Karnataka and others (2021)
Mohammad Salimullah and another v. Union of India and others (2021)
Farzana Batool v. Union of India and others (2021)
Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India and others (2021)
Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu and another (2022)

12/08/2024

Obiter Dicta: Obiter dicta are statements made by the court that are not part of the ratio decidendi. They are persuasive but not binding on lower courts.

Holding: The holding is the court’s final decision in the case. It is the answer to the legal question posed in the issues.

12/08/2024

The variation in the terminology of these two provisions appears to give some scope for the invocation of the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'. This Latin term literally means "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other". This is an ordinary common law principle for construing legislations.
(e) P ST J Langan, 'Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes', Twelfth Edition, Eighteenth Reprint, pp 283

- 84 (2010) writes about the above maxim as under:

"...By the rule usually known in the form of this Latin maxim, mention of one or more things of a particular class may be regarded as silently excluding all other members of the class:
expressum facit cessare tacitum. Further, where a statute uses two words or expressions one of which generally includes the other, the more general term is taken in a sense excluding the less general one: otherwise there would have been little point in using the latter as well as the former".
The exclusion is often the result of inadvertence or accident, and the maxim ought not to be applied when its application, having regard to the subject-matter to which it is to be applied, leads to inconsistency or injustice. More recently, Russell J. refused to apply the rule where to have done so would have produced a wholly irrational situation."

Sri. Raufuddin Kacheriwalay vs The State Of Karnataka

12/08/2024

The Latin maxim "cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex" meaning "reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself," is also apposite.

22. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail, courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing on the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.
Yeduguri Sandinti Bhaskar Reddy vs The State Through Central Bureau Of ... on 4 September, 2023

12/08/2024

The general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim :vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt (the vigilant, and not the sleepy, are assisted by the laws). That maxim cannot be applied in connection with offences relating to cruelty against women.
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
CBCID, OCU Police Station-II,
Chennai.
(Crime No.2 of 2021)

2.Sherin Fernandez ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to Crime
No.2 of 2021 registered by the first respondent Inspector of Police, CBCID,
OCU Police Station-II, Chennai and quash the FIR as against the petitioner.

12/08/2024

The Latin expression "ejusdem generis" which means "of the same kind or nature" is a principle of construction, meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are taken to be restricted by implication with the meaning of the restricted words. This is a principle which arises "from the linguistic implication by which words having literally a wide meaning (when taken in isolation) are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context". It may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance on implication. This principle is presumed to apply unless there is some contrary indication.
28. This ejusdem generis principle is a facet of the principle of noscitur a `sociis. The Latin maxim noscitur a sociis contemplates that a statutory term is recognised by its associated words. The Latin word "sociis" means "society".
M/S. Rungta Mines Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2023

14/08/2023

My take

Modi Government bills seek to replace IPC with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, CrPC with Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill & Indian Evidence Act with Bharatiya Sakshya Bill. Defamation Law is…

05/08/2023