Skip to main content

Courts' decision must be backed by reasoning: SC

Supreme Court today said courts' decision should be backed by reason and they should give rationale for deciding a case in favour or against any party.

"We are of the opinion that while recording the decision with clarity, the court is also supposed to record sufficient reasons in taking a particular decision or arriving at a particular conclusion.

"The reasons should be such that they demonstrate that the decision has been arrived at on an objective consideration," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri said.

The bench set aside the order of the Orissa High Court which had delivered its verdict but did not give any reasoning behind the judgement. The apex court referred the case back to High Court to decide the case afresh.

"It is nowhere suggested by us that the judgement should be too lengthy or prolix and disproportionate to the issue involved. However, it is to be borne in mind that the principal objective in giving judgement is to make an effective, practical and workable decision.

"The court resolves conflict by determining the merits of conflicting cases, and by choosing between notions of justice, convenience, public policy, morality, analogy, and takes into account the opinions of other courts or writers (precedents).

"Since the court is to come to a workable decision, its reasoning and conclusion must be practical, suit the facts as found and provide and effective, workable remedy to the winner," it said.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/courts-decision-must-be-backed-by-reasoning-sc-113102800831_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...