Memorials

The Supreme beg may, in its discretion, grant special advance to appeal from all Judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or club in any birth or matter passed or made by any appealyard or tribunal . Art 136 confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to deputise in suitable ceases, such as, a breach of natural Justice by the tack appealed against or in exceptional ceases. The Supreme Court will intervene in if at that place has been a resultant failure of Justices or trespass of principles of natural Justices or without a graceful appreciation of material on record or the submissions made, interference under Art. 6 is warranted. The Supreme Court grant moderate to appeal in criminal matters when exceptional and special circumstances exist, straightforward and grave injustice has been done, and the case in question presents features of sufficient soberness to warrant a re vision of the determination appealed against or at that place has been a de billeture f rom levelheaded procedure such as vitiates the whole trial, or if the findings of fact were such as were shocking to the judicial conscience of the Court.It would interfere where advanced Courts mark results in gross miscarriage of Justices. That special bequeath petition against interim order maintainable. The Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution in respect of an interlocutory/interim order in especial circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of process of the Court 1 or where it is unsustainable on the typeface of it or where the interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, on facts, is perverse in natures or unreasonable.Where the interim order was not made in equity, interference by the Supreme Court was called forl.That the reasons for the decision moldiness(prenominal)iness be given. A decision affecting the right of mickle without assigning any reason cannot be accepted as a procedure which is fair, Ju st and reasonable and hence violated of reasons may likewise be implied in the principles of natural Justice17. Absence of reasoning is impermissible in Judicial pronouncements.It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in police force and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To sub-serve the purpose of Justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing proper reasoning is the foundation of a Just and fair decision.Failure to give reasons amounts to defence reaction of Justices. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases. That order passed in violation of natural Justice is void. The breaches of rules of natural Justic e must occupy the put up of producing void decisions. Any action in violation of principles of natural Justice is a nullity and is altar-fires and hence suffers from Jurisdictional error. Thus, an order which infringes an fundamental freedom passed in violation of audit alters parted is a nullity.That decision of sub-ordinate court is in violation of Doctrine of Proportionality. The punishment oblige has to be reasonable because of the constraints of Art. 14. This means that if the punishment imposed is unreasonable, Art. 14 is infringed. The court can thus decide upon the proportionality of the punishment when it is strikingly disproportionate. The penalisation imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of he misconduct, and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violated of Art. 14 of the Constitution.The freedom of speech is regarded as a species of which freedom of expression is a genus29 That a company can challenge the violation of its unfathomed Rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has say that the law with regard to a company challenging the violation of its radical Rights under Article 19 is in a nebulous severalise. The Court has gone on to say Thus apart from the law fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Art. 9, the rights of a shareholder and the company which the shareholders have form are rather co-extensive and the denial to one of the fundamental freedom would be denial to the other.That intention is necessary for the offence of opprobrium under sectionalisation 499 of Indian Penal Code. In order to attract the offence of defamation under Section 499 of I. P. C. Mess area is required I. E. The publication must be made with intention to ruin the reputation of a soulfulness against whom it was directed. The accused must have made the imputation with the intention of harming or with the association that it will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Therefore , the intention to cause harm is the most essential sine qua non of an offence under Section 49934.That a company cannot be held criminally liable for the offence of defamation. In view of Section 3(42), General Clauses Act, 1897 a company or association or body of individuals answers the definition of person. So, prima facie a company may be prosecuted for demotion. But, to invoke Section 499, the defamatory publication must be associated by delinquents intention to cause harm. But company cannot be said to have the Mess area of forming an intention to cause harm because a company, a rustic entity cannot have any mind.If there is anything in the definition or context of a particular section in the statute which will prevent the application of the section to a limit company, certainly a limited company cannot be proceeded against. Then again a limited company cannot generally be tried when Mess area is essentially. The company is a legal entity which can be prosecuted if it is guil ty of acts which make it guilty under the particular Criminal Statuette. So a company cannot be held to have committed an offence under Section 500, l. P. CO.That decision must be given after viewing publication as a whole. Publication must be Judged as a whole. The impact and effect of the imputations, if any, had to be considered in the background of the entire facts and circumstances stated therein. The whammy and the antidote ought to have been considered together. If in one part of the publication there is something disreputable but it is removed by the other parts and the conclusions, then the disreputable part alone cannot be taken out in the process of woof and choosing in order to venture a prosecution for defamation.