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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more