Moot Idiota Essay

Moot Memo


Top of Form

MANU/SC/0092/1986Equivalent Quotation:  I(1987)ACC157, 1987ACJ386, AIR1987SC1086, (1987)1CompLJ99(SC), JT1987(1)SC1, 1986(2)SCALE1188, (1987)1SCC395, 1986Supp(1)SCC562, [1987]1SCR819IN THE SUPREME THE COURTROOM OF INDIAWrit Petition (Civil) No . 12739 of 1985Decided On:  20. 12. 1986Appellants:  M. C. Mehta and another Versus

Respondent:  Union of India and othersHon'ble Judges: �

G. L. Oza,  K. N. Singh,  M. Meters. Dutt,  P. N. Bhagwati and Ranganath Misra, JJ. Counsels: � For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Party-in-PersoFor Respondents/Defendant:  B. Datta, Additional Lawyer General,  A. B. Diwan,  F. H. Nariman,  B. R. L. Iyengar and Hardev Singh, Adv. Subject:  ConstitutionCatch WordsMentioned INActs/Rules/Orders: � Constitution of India -- Article doze,  Constitution of India -- Article 15(2),  Constitution of India - Article 18,  Constitution of India -- Article 21,  Constitution of India - Article twenty three,  Constitution of India - Article 24,  Constitution of India - Article thirty-two,  Constitution of India - Article 32(1),  Constitution of India - Article 32(2), Constitution of India -- Article 226Cases Referred: � Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,  MANU/SC/0051/1983;  S. P. Gupta versus. Union of India MANU/SC/0080/1981;  Rudul Shah versus. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0380/1983;  Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib,  MANU/SC/0498/1980;  Eurasian Tools and Chemical compounds Ltd. v. State of W. N.,  MANU/SC/0061/1974;  Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company,  42 M Ed (2d) 477;  Rylands v. Fletcher,  (1868) LR 3 HL 330,  19 LT 230,  (1861) All ER Repetition 1;  PUDR v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0038/1982;  Bhim Singh v. State of J & K,  MANU/SC/0064/1985;  Rajasthan State Electricity Panel v. Mohan Lal,  MANU/SC/0360/1967;  Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram,  MANU/SC/0667/1975;  R. D. Shetty v. Airfields Authority,  MANU/SC/0048/1979;  Som Prakash Rekhi sixth is v. Union of India,;  Rashbihari Panda v. State of Orissa,  MANU/SC/0054/1969;  Kasturi Lal Reddy v. State of J & K.  MANU/SC/0079/1980;  Air India v. Nergesh Meerza,  MANU/SC/0688/1981;  General Light company v. Martha V. Gilbert,  50 D Ed (2d) 343Citing Reference point: �

Discussed  10Mentioned  7Case Note: �

Constitution - Maintainability -- Applications had been filed simply by Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Table and Delhi Bar Affiliation for honor of compensation to persons who had suffered harm on account of get away of oleum gas via plants of Shriram Food and Fertiliser Industries - However , because issues raised involved significant questions of law relating to interpretation of Articles 21 years old and 32 of Constitution, case was referred to much larger Bench of 5 Judges -- Hence, this kind of Appeal -- Whether, beneath Article thirty-two Applications to get compensation wanted could be taken care of - Held, under Article 32(1), Court docket was liberated to devise any procedure appropriate for particular aim of proceeding -- However , benefits of Court has not been only injunctive in tour, that is, avoiding infringement of fundamental right, but was as well remedial in scope and provided relief against breach of fundamental right previously committed -- Thus, Court docket had power to grant this kind of remedial alleviation and could consist of power to merit compensation in appropriate cases - Therefore, it was unjust to person whose critical right was violated, to require him to go to Civil Court to get claiming reimbursement - Charm disposed of. Rate Decidendi: � " Legal courts shall purchase authorities to get enforcement of fundamental privileges of citizens and to shield fundamental legal rights of people. " JUDGMENTP. And. Bhagwati, CJ. 1 . This writ petition under Article 32 of the Metabolism has come before us over a reference of a Bench of three Judges. The reference was made because specific questions of seminal importance and substantial constitutional significance were elevated in the course of arguments when the writ petition was originally read. The facts offering rise towards the writ request and the subsequent events have already been set out in a few detail in the Judgment given by the Bench of 3 Judges about 17th Feb ....