Constitution of India — Art. 32 — Scope of interference under — Ex debito justitiae jurisdiction: Principle of ex debito justitiae is founded on a recognition of a debt that justice delivery system owes to a litigant to correct an error in a judicial dispensation. Its application, by the very nature of things, cannot be made to depend on varying perceptions of legal omissions and commissions but such recognition of the debt which have the potential of opening new vistas of exercise of jurisdiction to relook concluded cases, must rest on surer foundations. Principle of ex debito justitiae invoked on behalf of writ petitioner-accused, to invoke jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art. 32 to set him at liberty when he had been convicted under S. 3, TADA Act & Ss. 302/120-B IPC and sentenced, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment, by Supreme Court. Review petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. Instant writ petition sought interference with aforesaid order of conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner. Writ petition, held, not maintainable. [Ashiq Hussain Faktoo v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 739]
Constitution of India — Sch. VII List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25 — Medical colleges — Admissions to postgraduate courses: No authority can enact any other law or executive instructions to undermine Central Regulations framed under Sch. VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution. Regns. 9(4) and (7), MCI Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 [as amended by Noti. dt. 15-2-2012 and made applicable from academic year 2013-2014] (being such Regulations) did not provide for any reservation for in-service government doctors in PG degree courses (reservation was permissible for PG diploma courses only) but State Government by Order dt. 28-2-2014 providing said reservation for PG degree courses, held, illegal. Hence, High Court order setting aside said State Government order dt. 28-2-2014, upheld. [State of U.P. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749]
Contract Act, 1872 — S. 28 (as amended in 1997) — Nature, and temporal operation of: S. 28 is substantive law and operates prospectively. Language used in S. 28 does not make it operative retrospectively. As it is remedial in nature, it is neither clarificatory or declaratory. [Union of India v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2016) 9 SCC 720]
Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (25 of 1957) — Ss. 2(1)(t), 5-B and 6-B: Levy of sales tax on works contract, permissible only to the extent that there is a transfer of property in goods in execution of the works contract, which is deemed to be a “sale of goods” to that extent exigible to sales tax. [Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCT, (2016) 9 SCC 780]
Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of the Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 — Ss. 2(a) & (b), 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 18 r/w Statement of Objects and Reasons: Acquisition of user rights in land for laying down pipelines and procedure therefor, held, valid. However, held, that though no eligibility is prescribed for competent authority under S. 2(a), Government must appoint a person who is or has held a judicial office not lower in rank than a Subordinate Judge or is a trained legal mind. [Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya v. State of Gujarat, (2016) 9 SCC 791]
