Skip to main content

Reference

Reference 

Section 395 provides for Reference to High Court. The court is empowered to make a reference to High Court if following two conditions exists:

  •  The pending case must involve a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or any provision as contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation.
  •  The court should be of opinion that such Act, Ordinance or Regulation is invalid or in operative but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court.

A Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate may, if he thinks fit in any case to which the provisions of Section 395(1) do not apply, refer for the decision of the High Court any question of law arising in the hearing of such case.

  • Banarsi Yadav vs Krishna Chandra Dass:

In this case, it was decided that when there is a plausible dispute about an Act's constitutionality, a lower court may refer the case to the Supreme Court.

  • Sreenivasa Rao and Ors vs. Govt of Andra Pradesh :

The subordinate court lacked the authority to determine the legality of any Act, Ordinance, or Regulation. As a result, requires the subordinate court to refer the ongoing case to the High Court for resolution of the legality issue that is necessary for the case to be resolved.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping law s and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to...
Post a Comment
Read more

PART-2 IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PART-2  IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 1. Hira Nath Mishra Vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, is a leading case on:   (A) Judicial review  (B) Right of Cross-examination   (C) Reasoned decision   (D) Public corporation  Answer : (B) Right of Cross-examination Explanation : This case involved the expulsion of some students from a medical college for misconduct without giving them a chance to cross-examine the witnesses against them. The Supreme Court held that this violated the principles of natural justice and quashed the expulsion order. The court observed that the right of cross-examination is an essential element of a fair hearing and cannot be denied arbitrarily.  2 . Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India is related to:   (A) Writ of certiorari   (B) Post-decisional hearing  (C) Tortious liability of State  (D) Lokpal Answer : (B) Post-decisional hearing Explanation : This case involved the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915). Section 53 - Fradulent transfer

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915).  This citation indicates that the case was decided by the Privy Council (P.C.) in 1915, and reported in volume 43 of the Indian Appeals (I.A.), starting from page 151.  The case of Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another was a dispute over the validity of two conveyances of land executed by a debtor, Kishun Benode, to his relatives, Kamta Prashad and Hakim Lal, on 2nd September 1901. The plaintiff, Musahar Sahu, was a creditor of Kishun Benode who had obtained a judgment against him on 5th December 1901. The plaintiff sought to set aside the conveyances on the ground that they were made with intent to defeat or delay his claim, under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The courts gave different verdicts on the two conveyances. The first conveyance, in favour of Kamta Prashad, was set aside by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, as it was found to be without consi...
Post a Comment
Read more