Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS
         








Home / Important Personalities

Important Personalities

Justice Dipankar Datta

    «
 04-Jul-2024

Introduction

  • Justice Dipankar Datta was born on 09th February 1965 in a Bengali family. Justice Datta is the son of a former Calcutta High Court Judge, late Justice Salil Kumar Datta and brother-in-law of former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Amitava Roy. 

Career 

  • Justice Dipankar Datta obtained his LL.B. degree from the Hazra Law College, University of Calcutta in 1989. 
  • He was enrolled as an advocate on16th November 1989 and worked as a junior Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal for two years. 
  • During his 16- year tenure as an advocate, Justice Datta appeared for several educational authorities and institutions including the University of Calcutta, W.B. School Service Commission and W.B. Board of Secondary Education. 
  • He also served as a Judge of the Calcutta High Court from 22nd June 2006 to 27th April 2020. 
  • Thereafter, he was elevated as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.  
  • He was elevated as the Judge of Supreme Court on 12th December 2022.

Notable Judgments 

Landmark Judgments 

  • Unibros v. All India Radio (2023) 
    • An award passed can be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds of violation of public policy of India. 
    • Any award of an arbitrator or a tribunal that seeks to reach a binding judicial decision, in our opinion, does conflict with fundamental public policy and cannot, therefore, sustain. 
    • In order for a party to succeed in the claim for loss of profit the party must show with convincing evidence that had the contract been performed promptly, the contractor could have secured supplementary profits utilizing it’s existing resources elsewhere. 
  • Ameena Begum v. State of Telengana (2023) 
    • The SC in the present case formulated guidelines for a Constitutional Court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine following: 
      • The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied. 
      • In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. 
      • Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires. 
      • The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body. 
      • The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case. 
      • The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate. 
      • The satisfaction has arrived at bearing in mind the existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale. 
      • The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached. 
      • The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation. 
  • Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023) 
    • The Supreme Court in this case talked about the discretionary power of the Court to grant condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 
    • The Court in this case laid down the difference between ‘excuse’ and ‘explanation’. 
      • An ‘excuse’ is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack.  
      • It is sort of a defensive action.  
      • Calling something as just an ‘excuse’ would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true 
    • The Court in this case held that the condonation of delay granted in the given circumstances was correct and hence upheld the order passed by the High Court.  
  • Premchand v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 
    • The 2-judge bench in this case summarised the principles under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
    • The Court laid down the following points: 
      • Section 313, CrPC [clause (b) of sub-section 1] is a valuable safeguard in the trial process for the accused to establish his innocence. 
      • Section 313, which is intended to ensure a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, casts a mandatory duty on the court to question the accused generally on the case for the purpose of enabling him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him; 
      • When questioned, the accused may not admit his involvement at all and choose to flatly deny or outrightly repudiate whatever is put to him by the court 
      • The accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognized defences; 
      • An accused can make a statement without fear of being cross-examined by the prosecution or the latter having any right to cross-examine him 
      • The explanations that an accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but has to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the section 313 statement(s); 
      • Statements of the accused in course of examination under section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence under section 3 of the Evidence Act, yet, the answers given are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case; 
      • Statement(s) of the accused cannot be dissected to rely on the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and has/have to be read in the whole, inter alia, to test the authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission; and 
      • If the accused takes a defence and proffers any alternate version of events or interpretation, the court has to carefully analyze and consider his statements; 
      • Any failure to consider the accused’s explanation of incriminating circumstances, in a given case, may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the conviction. 

Recent Judgments 

  • Asma Lateef v. Shabber Ahmad (2024) 
    • The Court in this case discussed the law on Order VIII Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
    • The Court held that Rule 10 is not mandatory in the sense that the Court has no alternative but to pass a judgment. 
      • The Court in this regard cited the case of Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999).  
    • The Court examined the meaning of the term “jurisdiction” and held that the essence really is that the Court must not only have jurisdiction over the subject matter but also have jurisdiction to grant the interim relief. 
    • The Court held that the decision rendered without first adjudicating the competence of the Court to decide on the controversy would be treated as nullity in the eyes of law. 
  • Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. (2024) 
    • The Court in this case reierated that a woman has exclusive right over the ‘stridhan’. 
    • The husband has no right over this property and he may use it during the time of distress but he has a moral obligation to restore the same. 
    • Therefore, stridhan is not a joint property of the husband and the wife and the husband has no right or dominion over the property.  
  • State of Karnataka v. M.N. Basavraja and Othr  (2024) 
    • In this case the Court was dealing with a matter pertaining to Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 304 B of IPC.  
    • The Court noted that if the evidence of family members is discarded due to bias, there would be no reliable witnesses left to testify. 
  • Jay Shri v. State of Rajasthan (2024) 
    • The Supreme Court observed in this case that a mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence of cheating or breach of trust as provided under the Indian Penal Code unless the fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown.