A reference from a smaller bench to a bench of greater numerical strength — typically done when a smaller bench finds that a prior decision of a co-ordinate or larger bench requires reconsideration, or when conflicting decisions of equal benches need to be resolved.
Explanation
In the Supreme Court and High Courts, judicial authority is bench-strength sensitive. A two-judge bench cannot overrule a three-judge bench's decision; a five-judge Constitution Bench decision can only be overruled by another Constitution Bench. When a smaller bench encounters a legal issue that: (a) conflicts with a prior decision of a co-ordinate (same-strength) bench; (b) conflicts with an earlier larger bench decision; or (c) raises substantial questions that the current bench believes warrant a larger bench's consideration — the bench refers the matter to a larger bench. The reference triggers a procedural reorganisation: the CJI constitutes a bench of the appropriate greater strength to hear the referred matter.
Statutory Provision
No specific statutory provision — the practice of larger bench reference is governed by judicial convention, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Article 145 of the Constitution. Article 145(3): 'The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under article 143 shall be five.' This establishes the constitutional threshold for constitutional interpretation matters that effectively requires larger bench reference for certain questions.
A procedural status indicating that a court has completed the hearing of arguments in a case and has reserved the matter for judgment — the case is 'last heard' and judgment is awaited.
Explanation
'Last heard' (also called 'heard and reserved' or 'CAV' — the Latin 'caveatur' meaning 'let it be kept' is sometimes used in High Courts to indicate the matter is reserved for judgment) indicates that all arguments are complete and the court will pronounce its judgment at a future date. When a matter is reserved for judgment, the parties cannot make further submissions unless the court specifically requests them. High Courts typically pronounce reserved judgments within a few months; the Supreme Court may reserve and pronounce within days or after months. Reserved judgments are typically more detailed and reasoned than bench orders delivered immediately after arguments.
Statutory Provision
No specific statutory provision — 'last heard' or 'heard and reserved' is a procedural notation indicating the status of a matter in the cause list. The court's obligation to pronounce judgment in reasonable time flows from Article 21 (right to speedy justice) and the general principle that courts should not indefinitely defer reserved judgments.
A court grant appointing an administrator to manage and distribute the estate of a person who died intestate, or where the executor named in the will is unable or unwilling to act.
Explanation
Letters of administration (LA) are granted under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 234-302) to appoint an administrator to manage the estate of a deceased person who either died without a will (intestate) or left a will without appointing an executor, or whose executor has renounced or died. The administrator has the same authority over the estate as an executor but derives it from the court's grant, not from the will. LA are required where the deceased left moveable property and no will, or where the will cannot be proved by probate.
Statutory Provision
Section 234, Indian Succession Act, 1925: 'When a person dies intestate, administration of his estate may be granted to any person who, according to the rules for the distribution of the estate of intestates applicable in the case of such deceased person, would be entitled to the whole or any part of such deceased person's estate.'
A rule of statutory interpretation requiring that remedial, welfare, or beneficial statutes be given the widest possible reading that advances the legislation's beneficial purpose — resolving any ambiguity in favour of those the statute is designed to protect.
Explanation
Liberal (or 'beneficial') construction is the counterpart to strict construction — while strict construction narrows penal statutes to protect the accused, liberal construction widens welfare statutes to protect beneficiaries. The principle: statutes that are remedial in nature (enacted to address a social problem, protect vulnerable persons, or provide access to justice) should be read broadly to achieve their protective purpose. Courts are reluctant to adopt narrow readings that would leave the statute's beneficiaries outside its protection. Applied to labour laws, consumer protection, anti-discrimination statutes, social security legislation, and domestic violence protection.
Statutory Provision
No statutory provision — liberal construction is a judge-made principle. Applied most prominently to: (a) Labour legislation — courts interpret ambiguous provisions in favour of workers; (b) Consumer Protection Act — provisions interpreted to maximise consumer protection; (c) PWDVA, 2005 — provisions for domestic violence victims interpreted broadly; (d) RTI Act, 2005 — right to information read broadly, exceptions narrowly. Supreme Court in <em>Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India</em> AIR 1978 SC 597 applied liberal construction to Article 21 to expand its reach significantly beyond its literal text.
A personal permission given by one person to another to do an act on the licensor's property, which would otherwise be unlawful, and which is revocable unless made irrevocable by contract.
Explanation
A licence under the Indian Easements Act, 1882 is a right granted by one person (licensor) to another (licensee) to do something that would otherwise be a trespass or unlawful act. Unlike an easement—which is a right in property and runs with the land—a licence is a personal right. It is not heritable, not transferable, and (unless contractually irrevocable) revocable at will. On revocation, the licensee has a reasonable time to leave. The critical practical question is often whether an arrangement creates a licence or a tenancy—only the latter creates a legal interest in land.
Statutory Provision
Section 52, Indian Easements Act, 1882: 'Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immoveable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a licence.'
The time period within which a legal action must be filed — after which the remedy is extinguished.
Explanation
The law prescribes fixed periods within which suits, appeals, or applications must be filed — filing beyond the limitation period renders the action barred, though courts may condone delay for sufficient cause.
Statutory Provision
Limitation Act, 1963, Sections 3 (bar of limitation) and 5 (extension for sufficient cause).
The process of dissolving a company by selling its assets, paying its debts (in the prescribed priority order), and distributing any remaining surplus to shareholders — either voluntarily or by order of the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Explanation
Liquidation under the IBC, 2016 is the process that begins when: (a) the Committee of Creditors (CoC) decides to liquidate (Section 33(1) — CoC resolution for liquidation); or (b) the NCLT passes a liquidation order because no resolution plan was received or approved within the CIRP timeline; or (c) the resolution plan contravenes the law. Once a liquidation order is passed: (a) a Liquidator is appointed; (b) all assets vest in the Liquidator; (c) all legal proceedings are stayed; and (d) the liquidation estate is sold and distributed in the priority order under Section 53 IBC. Under Companies Act, winding up may also occur voluntarily (creditors'/members' voluntary winding up) or by order of NCLT under Section 271.
Statutory Provision
Section 33(1), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'Where the Adjudicating Authority, — (a) before receiving the resolution plan under sub-section (6) of section 30 receives an application from the resolution professional or from any of the parties to initiate liquidation proceedings, it shall pass a liquidation order under clause (b); (b) does not receive a resolution plan under sub-section (6) of section 30 before the expiry of the insolvency resolution process period... it shall pass a liquidation order.' Section 53: Waterfall of distribution in liquidation.
The formal process under Chapter III of the IBC for dissolving a company that cannot be rescued through the CIRP — involving appointment of a Liquidator, realisation of the liquidation estate, payment of creditors in the Section 53 waterfall order, and dissolution of the corporate debtor.
Explanation
The IBC Liquidation Process (Sections 33-54) is triggered when: (a) the CIRP ends without a approved resolution plan; (b) the CoC decides to liquidate; or (c) the resolution plan is non-compliant with IBC. Steps: NCLT order → Liquidator appointment → Public announcement → Claims submission → Verification of claims → Formation of liquidation estate → Asset realisation (by sale) → Distribution per Section 53 waterfall → Dissolution order. The Liquidator has extensive powers — including power to investigate the corporate debtor's affairs, challenge avoidance transactions, sell assets, and manage ongoing business operations during liquidation.
Statutory Provision
Section 35(1), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'Subject to the directions of the Adjudicating Authority, the liquidator shall have the following powers and duties, namely: — (a) to verify claims of all the creditors; (b) to take into his custody or control all the assets, property, effects and actionable claims of the corporate debtor; (c) to evaluate the assets and property of the corporate debtor in the manner as may be specified by the Board; (d) to take such measures to protect and preserve the assets and properties of the corporate debtor as he considers necessary; (e) to carry on the business of the corporate debtor for its beneficial liquidation...'
A method of statutory interpretation that gives words their ordinary, natural, grammatical meaning — without reading in additional meaning, purpose, or context — on the premise that the legislature said exactly what it meant.
Explanation
Literal interpretation (the 'plain meaning rule' or 'literal rule') instructs courts to read statutory words in their ordinary, natural meaning. If the words are clear, the court applies them as written — without reference to the statute's purpose, the legislative history, or the consequences of the literal reading. The classic statement: 'If the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity' (Abley v. Dale, 1851). However, even the literal rule has limits: if the literal reading produces an absurd or repugnant result, courts may deviate (this deviation is the basis of the 'golden rule'). Indian courts generally treat literal interpretation as the starting point but readily move to purposive or harmonious construction when literal reading produces unsatisfactory results.
Statutory Provision
No statutory provision — literal interpretation is a common law canon. Section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reflects one aspect: singular includes plural and vice versa — this is a standard directive to give words their natural grammatical meaning. Indian courts: <em>A.N. Roy v. Mihir Sen</em> (1957) holds that when statutory language is plain and unambiguous, it must be given effect regardless of consequences.
