The ANC had been the complainant, and then the prosecutor and ultimately the judge in its own cause. This had violated the rules of natural justice. In the circumstances of the case the inference that the ad hoc committee was in fact biased was irresistible.444E.445A/B--C. The court held, further, that the ad hoc committee had acted mala fide, and that no-one had the power to act mala fide, Parliament included.
|
|
They further submitted that having proven legislative competence, it was unnecessary to prove or disprove any mala fide intentions of the Mysore legislature. It was submitted that the motives of the legislature could not be called into question.
|
|
1927 AD 271. This debateSee Kerr Sale and Lease 177ff. is considered in due course. Should a seller mala fide fail to transfer ownership, the buyer has an action ex empto for transfer of ownership, as soon as he discovers the true position.
|
|
He also observed that laying down ordinances before the Parliament is a mandatory constitutional obligation that cannot be bypassed. The judgment was recognised for expanding the grounds of judicial review of an ordinance and limiting the scope of the mala fide exercise of ordinance promulgation.
|
|
Relatives of the convicts filed petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, alleging mala fide. They were represented by human rights lawyer Asma Jahangir and senior lawyer Ahmad Raza Khan Kasuri. The prosecution team was led by Attorney-General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali.
|
|
Rabie was duly prosecuted but ultimately acquitted. Van der Westhuizen's actions were found by the court to be totally self-serving and mala fide. Rabie instituted and later succeeded in an action for damages based on section 1 of the State Liability Act.Act 20 of 1957.
|
|
No governor has resigned on impropriety to continue in office for declaring and nullifying his decisions as unconstitutional by the courts till now. No criminal case at least on the grounds of disrespecting constitution is lodged till now against former governors to punish them for their unconstitutional acts though many decisions taken during the term of governorship had been declared by Supreme Court as unconstitutional, mala fide, void, ultra vires, etc.
|
|
Justice Chandrachud delivered a dissent in Romila Thapar & Ors. v. Union of India, where an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was sought by five human rights activists who were charged and arrested for commission of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1947 following the violence that broke out during Elgar Parishad event in 2018. The majority refused the constitution of the SIT. In his dissent, Justice Chandrachud directed that the investigation should be conducted by a SIT and reprimanded the Pune police for their mala fide behaviour in aiding the conduct of “media trial”.
|
|
It is important to note that the first three categories allow an aggrieved party a contractual remedy: that is, an actio empti, which includes a claim for consequential loss or id quod interesse. The fourth category provides for aedilitian relief. The four categories are: # where the seller has acted fraudulently, or mala fide; # where the seller has warranted the absence of a latent defect; # where the seller is an artifex, manufacturer or seller, or is a dealer professing attributes of skill and expert knowledge in relation to the thing; and # where the aedilitian actions are available.
|
|
This is an order that the costs be paid by the attorney, instead of by the client. A court will make this kind of order where it believes that it was the attorney's fault that certain legal costs were incurred. A court may also order costs de bonis propiis against a person who acts in a representative capacity, such as an executor of a deceased estate, or a trustee of an insolvent estate. Such costs are usually granted if there is a substantial deviation from the responsibilities of the person's office—where, for example, the person has acted mala fide, negligently or unreasonably.
|
|
This, the court stressed, is not an interference with the independence of Parliament and its right to control its own procedures and the discipline its members. The court did not seek to dictate to Parliament; it could not have done so. It recognised the separation of powers and its desirability, as well as that the proper exercise of parliamentary privilege was a matter for Parliament alone. Where, however, the court can and must interfere is where Parliament has improperly exercised that privilege and acted mala fide or capriciously and in defiance of the constitutionally inherent rights of a Member, such as the right to just administrative action.452G--453B.
|
|
Where the privilege breaches the provisions of the Constitution, the aggrieved party is entitled to seek redress from the courts, to which is entrusted the task of ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution. The certificate issued by the Speaker in terms of section 5 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament ActAct 91 of 1963 had the effect of undermining the independence of the courts and interfering with their functioning. Section 5, therefore, was unconstitutional to the extent that it purported to place parliamentary privilege beyond judicial scrutiny, and thus beyond the supreme Constitution, on the mere ipse dixit of the Speaker. Nor, the court found, does Parliament have the power to act mala fide.
|
|
As soon as an accused is brought to the police station, and a charge laid against him, a new decision has to be taken by the police: whether he should be detained or not. Even if the arrest and detention up to that stage were unlawful, Wessels continued, the detention after the decision to prosecute can be lawful, if the decision to prosecute was lawful: that is to say, taken bona fide on reasonable grounds. Only when the police act mala fide, without reasonable and probable cause, can an action for unlawful detention against the appellant succeed for the time that the respondent was held in custody in the police cells.See Donono v Minister of Prisons 1973 (4) SA at 262.
|
|
Ahsan said that the affidavit showed the date of 8 March when no reference had been filed, the CJP had not been declared ineffective and neither the SJC was hearing any case. "How is it possible that a PRO is narrating events which had not happened till the date when he signed the affidavit ... I am referring to it as an example of bogus affidavit and there are many more which we will disclose before the SC," he added. He said that former Punjab IG and the current Sindh IG had also made errors in their affidavits, which showed that the entire episode was mala fide. Meanwhile, government's lead counsel Justice (r) Malik Qayyum said on Friday that the SC could cross-examine the heads of the intelligence agencies and other respondents for the verification of their assertions.
|
|
In August 2003, Jharkhand-based project director Satyendra Dubey, in a letter to the prime minister, outlined a list of bad faith (mala fide) actions in a segment of a highway in Bihar. Dubey's claims included that big contractors had inside information from NHAI officials, Bihar govt wakes up to IITian's murder-Source-Rediff News that the contractors for this stretch were not executing the project themselves (as stipulated in the contract) but had subcontracting the work to small builders who lacked technical expertise, and that no follow-up was performed after awarding advances. Dubey's name was leaked by the prime minister's office to the NHAI, and he was transferred against his wishes to Gaya, Bihar, where he was murdered on 27 November. The NHAI eventually admitted that Dubey's allegations were substantiated, and implemented "radical reforms" in the selection and contract procedures.
|
|
In September 1935, the association sent a memorandum to the Governor of Madras requesting withdrawal of concessions granted to villagers in Reserve Forests, involving Malayalees. The association were involved in the aftermath of the 2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka, and participated in the protest on 20 February 2011 against the report of the official investigation of Judge B. K. Somasekhara into the attacks. However, the president of Catholic Association of South Kanara, Dr Derek Lobo, filed a forgery case against Judge M. F. Saldanha, former Justice of the Bombay High Court, who conducted one of the investigations into the attacks and supported the denouncement of the Somasekhara report. This was condemned by the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) and NGOs from Dakshina Kannada; the PUCL called the association's action as "illegal, vicious, mala fide, motivated and vindictive", saying that "Justice Saldanha is regarded as one of the highly respected members of the Indian judiciary".
|
|
In the case the court found statements by M.A. Mir, superintendent of police to be false, neither could the superintendent explain why he expected Bhim Singh to travel through Qazi Kund on the night of his arrest. The court also found the lengthy affidavit filed by inspector general Khajuria contained statements of facts that he could not possibly have been aware off. The court found that Bhim Singh was not produced before the magistrate nor sub judge who issued the police orders of remand and that the police obtained the orders in surreptitious circumstances at the residence of the magistrate and after hours from the sub judge. The Supreme Court judge, O. Chinnappa Reddy criticized the conduct of the magistrate and sub judge stating that they had no concern for the subject out of either casual behavior or worse that they had potentially colluded with the police who had deliberately acted mala fide.
|
|
Supreme Court shall inquire and decide regarding doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President per Article 71(1) of the constitution. Subject to Article 71 (3), Parliament made applicable rules/procedure to petition the Supreme Court for resolving the disputes only that arise during the election process of the president but not the doubts that arise from his unconstitutional actions/deeds or changing Indian citizenship during the tenure of president which may violate the requisite election qualifications. Subject to the provisions of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, Supreme Court can remove the president for ceasing to possess the eligible qualifications to be Lok Sabha member under Sections 7 & 8(k) of this Act when the acts/ deeds (i.e. for giving assent to unconstitutional bills passed by the parliament or state legislatives, permitting the gazette notification of the unconstitutional advises {including promulgation of ordinances under Article 123 or imposing president rules in a state under Article 356} rendered by the union cabinet / prime minister, etc.) of the president are proclaimed by the courts as unconstitutional, mala fide, ultra vires, void, etc.
|
|