Judgments Supreme Court

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/18989/18989_2009_32_1501_22617_Judgement_15-Jun-2020.pdf “We are called upon to decide as to whether Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Bombay Tenancy Act’) debars an agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a “Will” so also, whether Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act restricts transfer of any land or interest purchased by the tenant under Sections 17B, 32, 32F. 321. 320, 32U, 33(1) or 88E or sold to any person under Section 32P or 64 of the Tenancy Act through the execution of a Will by way of testamentary disposition. 8.1 While dealing with the question whether the term ‘ assignment’ used in Section 43 of the Act would include ‘ testamentary disposition’ , it was observed by the Division Bench:-  12. We may now consider the decisions of this Court which have dealt with issues concerning testamentary disposition of agricultural holdings. 15. Various ...

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/36028/36028_2018_32_1502_22617_Judgement_15-Jun-2020.pdf 35. For exercising revisional power “suo motu” or “on its motion”, the concerned authority must be satisfied that an order has been passed by the authority or officer subordinate to it. which may be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 36 The High Court has not found the exercise of power to be invalid on any count, nor was any such submission advanced before the High Court. The High Court had simply gone on the existence of power rather than on the exercise of power. It is not as if the assessment made by the appellate  authority was either opposed to principles of natural justice, or was so palpably incorrect, that it could never be sustained. In our view, the High Court completely erred in setting aside the exercise of power undertaken by the concerned authority. The exercise of power was definitely designed to obviate an obvious illegality and prejudice to the interest of t...

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/21490/21490_2019_32_1503_22617_Judgement_15-Jun-2020.pdf Matter was referred to larger bench 

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/1713/1713_2019_33_1504_21813_Judgement_24-Apr-2020.pdf The complainant u/s 498 A was filed beyond period of limitation i.e after 3 years and hence time barred while there was no entrustment of items to the mother in law and complaint is not maintainable