Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA, S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN
R. K. Karanjia – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bhagwati, J. (Majority view):-These writ petitions raise a common question of law relating to the constitutional validity of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981 (herein- after referred to as the Ordinance) and Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The principal ground on which the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and the Act is challenged is that they are violative of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. There is also one other ground on which the Ordinance is assailed as constitutionally invalid and it is that the President had no power under Article 123 of the Constitution to issue the Ordinance and the Ordinance is therefore ultra vires and void. We shall first deal with the latter ground since it can be disposed of briefly, but before we do so, it would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. It is not necessary to make any specific reference to the provisions of the Ordinance since the provisions of the Act are substantially a reproduction of the provisions of the Ordinance.
2. On 12th Jan., 1981, both Houses of Parliame
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.