LOTTERY: Online lottery prohibited when State running paper lottery
Under the scheme of online lotteries, a number of lotteries run simultaneously. So, by holding several lotteries, there can be several draws with a gap of few minutes in a day and the gullible will remain glued and there is every likelihood of purchase of tickets repeatedly, till all his savings are exhausted. So, if the government takes a decision in public interest to prohibit online lotteries, this Court should not interfere with the said decision unless there are compelling grounds. As held earlier, going by section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 as interpreted by this Court in B.R. Enterprises, the sale of a particular lottery can be prohibited provided the State Government concerned is not running that lottery.
If a paper lottery is being prohibited by a particular State then that paper lottery has to be prohibited as a whole. Likewise, online or internet lottery of all States including that State also has to be prohibited. Viewed from this angle, we are of the considered opinion that State of Kerala was well within its rights to prohibit the sale of online or internet lotteries in its State and there is no fault in it. It is well within the powers conferred on it under section 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998.
All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Association v. State of Kerala and others , Civil Appeal No. 3518 of 2007; [H.L. Dattu, C.J., R.K. Agarwal and Arun Mishra, JJ.)
RES JUDICATA: Need of any judicial system
The principle of res judicata is a need of any judicial system, that is to give finality to the judicial decisions of the disputes between parties. It also aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties of the same subject-matter of the list. An issue which was directly and substantially involved in a former suit between the same parties, and has been decided and has attained finality cannot be
re-agitated before the courts by instituting suit or proceeding by the same parties on the same subject matter of the earlier list.
Thus, for the bar of res judicata to operate in the subsequent original suit proceedings, the litigating parties must be the same, and the subject - matter of the suit must also be identical. Further, for the bar of res judicata to operate in the subsequent original suit proceedings, the decision in the former suit must have been decided on merits on the same substantial questions both on facts and in law that would arise in the subsequent original suit.
City Municipal Council Bhalki v. Gurappa (Dead) By Legal Representatives and another , Civil Appeal Nos. 8044-48 of 2015, decided on September 29, 2015; [V. Gopala Gowda and Amitava
Roy , JJ.]
Power to announce and amend
Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 provides that the Central Government may from time to time, formulate and announce, the EXIM Policy. This has to be done by issuing/announcing this Policy by way of notification in the Official Gazette. The Central Government also has the power to amend the Policy so announced by adopting the same procedure i.e ., by issuing notification in the Official Gazette. It is not in dispute that the EXIM Policy in question was issued by the notification in exercise of powers conferred under section 5 of the Act. This Policy, thus, is infested with statutory flavour.
Power to announce the Policy and to amend the same remains with the Central Government. Likewise, power to make rules under section 19 of the f oreign t rade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 which vests with the Central Government, cannot be delegated.
Director General of Foreign Trade and another v. Kanak Exports and another , Civil Appeal Nos. 554 of 2006, d ecided on October 27, 2015; [Dr. A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.].
ABATEMENT: Non- substitution of Legal Representatives of the Deceased
The plaintiffs joined together and filed the suit for rectification of the revenue record by incorporating their names as the owners and possessors in respect of the suit land on the ground inter alia that after the death of their predecessor-in-title, who was admittedly the pattadar and khatadar, the plaintiffs succeeded the estate sharers being the sons of khatadar. Indisputably, therefore, all the plaintiffs had equal shares in the suit property left by their predecessors. Hence, in the event of death of any of the plaintiffs, the estate is fully and substantially represented by the other sharers as owners of the suit property. We are, therefore, of the view that by reason of non- substitution of the legal representative(s) of the deceased plaintiffs, who died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court the entire appeal shall not stand abated. Remaining sharers, having definite shares in the estate of the deceased, shall be entitled to proceed with the appeal without the appeal having been abated.
State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and others v. Pratap Karan and others , Civil Appeal No. 2963 of 2013; [M. Yusuf Eqbal and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.]
Affidavit : was s ufficient p roof of a ge
Be that as it may, in case, the copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate meets the requirement of the Eligibility Criteria, we fail to understand as to how does it make a difference in case the School Leaving Certificate is of the Higher Secondary School. The learned counsel for the Corporation was at pains to explain before us that the Secondary School Leaving Certificate is issued by the Board whereas the School Leaving Certificate of the Higher Secondary School is issued by the School. School Leaving Certificate, as the very expression indicates, is issued by the School since the pupil leaves the school. Annexure P1, which was produced by the appellant before the Corporation is captioned as "School Leave Certificate". The requirement of the Corporation is only a proof regarding the age. No doubt, certain documents are specified in the Eligibility Criteria which would be accepted by the Corporation as proof of age. In case, a copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age, it does not even strike to common sense as to why the copy of the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate, duly attested, cannot be accepted as proof of age. The High Court, however, is not correct in its approach. The clarification we have made does not in any way amend the criteria.
Hina v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1676 of 2016; [Kurian , J.]