SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Bail

Supreme Court grants bail to Teesta Setalvad; calls Gujarat HC observations 'perverse', 'contradictory'. Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : 2023 INSC 637

Cheque

NI Act | In cheque dishonour case, interim compensation can be ordered to be paid only after the accused pleads not guilty. Pawan Bhasin v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 537

COFEPOSA

SLP challenging report of advisory board/opinion of board not maintainable. Union of India v. Dharanessh Raji Shetty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 547

Constitution

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking inclusion of Rajasthani language in eighth schedule. Ripudaman Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Can parliamentary law under Article 239AA(7) alter constitutional powers of Delhi govt? issue referred to the Supreme Court constitution bench. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : 2023 INSC 635

Supreme Court refers to Constitution Bench Delhi Govt's plea challenging centre's services ordinance. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : 2023 INSC 635

Cow Slaughter

Prohibition of cow slaughter to be decided by legislature, court can't compel law making. Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535

Criminal Law

Modality proposed by Calcutta High Court to CBI for filing appeals not a mandate. Central Bureau of Investigations v. S.R. Ramamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 558

Accused not filing a petition to quash FIR / Chargesheet has no relevance in deciding bail application. Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : 2023 INSC 637

Teesta Setalvad case | 'What investigation was done in 24 hours? What was the State doing for 20 yrs?' : questions by Supreme Court to Gujarat Police. Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : 2023 INSC 637

'Guilty Intention' vs 'Guilty Knowledge' : Supreme Court explains fine distinction between two parts of Section 304 IPC. Anbazhagan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550 : 2023 INSC 632

'No Overt Act' : Supreme Court set aside conviction under Section 323 r/w 34 IPC. Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 546 : 2023 INSC 627

Supreme Court upholds acquittal of three policemen in 36 year old murder case; dismisses CBI's appeal. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542 : 2023 INSC 623

Death by accidental firing : Supreme Court converts conviction of cop from Section 302 to Section 304A IPC. Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622

Cryptic Order

The judgment and order of the High Court appears a bit cryptic but that by itself need not be a ground to set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court, particularly, when there is relevant record to assess the merit of the prosecution case. More so, because the incident is of the year 1987 and the appeal 2 has remained pending since more than a decade. In such circumstances, if we remit the matter to the High Court only to rewrite the judgment, it would be travesty of justice. (Para 26) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542 : 2023 INSC 623

Disability

Supreme Court directs states to appoint chief commissioners, frame rules under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016. Seema Girija v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545

Discrimination

Allegation of alleged discriminatory treatment to the candidates belonging to north and Hindi speaking States, in the matter of appointment as faculty members in IITs, is totally vague, evasive and without any supporting material. The petitioner has made sweeping allegations that several IIT students have committed suicide due to harassment caused by the professors in IITs. Such an absurd plea appears to have been taken on the basis of some news reports. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and misdirected. (Para 4, 5) Dr. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 544

Government Officers

Govt Officers should not be summoned to court 'at the drop of a hat'. State of Bihar v. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548

Insolvency

IBC overrides electricity act; dues to secured creditors at higher footing than electricity dues. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534 : 2023 INSC 625

Interpretation of Statutes

When an enactment uses two different expressions, they cannot be construed as having the same meaning. (Para 51) Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Judicial Service

The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Tripura High Court that directed the State Government to pay former judge of the Gauhati High Court, Justice Alok Baran Pal who retired as the Chairman of the National Security Advisory Board to be paid remuneration at the rate of the salary of a High Court judge minus the pension during the period he held the sole post as Chairman of the Board. State of Tripura v. Justice (Retd.) Alok Baran Pal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 557

DHJS Exam 2022 : Supreme Court sets aside Delhi HC order allowing re-evaluation of answer sheet. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553

Labour and Employment

Industrial Tribunal - Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) - The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to complete the process of appointing judicial officers to the vacant seats of the Central Government Industrial Tribunals before August 31, 2023. Labour Law Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 536

Motive

The failure to prove the existence of the motive is one of the circumstances which makes the prosecution case regarding intentional firing by the appellant not worthy of acceptance. (Para 9) Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622

Narcotic Drugs

The Mandate of Section 52A NDPS Act has to be duly complied before disposal / destruction of seized narcotic substances. Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549 : 2023 INSC 634

National Award for Teachers (NAT)

The Supreme Court allowed teachers from 10 different states who had jointly filed a plea challenging the revised selection process for National Award to Teachers issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Ministry in 2018 as "opaque and discriminatory", to approach the Centre with their representation. Girisha Chandra Mishra v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 541

POCSO Act

School transfer certificate cannot be relied upon to determine POCSO victim age. P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538 : 2023 INSC 626

Practice and Procedure

Summoning authorities of the State to Court at the drop of a hat undermines the majesty of the Court. Insisting on the presence of officers in court wastes precious time that could be spent in the discharge of their duties and that such a practice must not be adopted as a routine. (Para 6 - 8) State of Bihar v. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548

Reservation

Reservation - The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to cancel faculty appointments in Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) from 2008 to present for allegedly violating reservation norms. The petitioner admits that the matter regarding implementation of reservation policy in the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) is already pending before the Supreme Court as well the Madras High Court. Hence, no separate writ petition on the same issue is required to be entertained. Petitioner’s prayer to cancel appointments from June 2008 onwards cannot be entertained at this belated stage, more so, when none of the appointees is a party respondent. (Para 4) Dr. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 544

The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on a litigant who sought the constitution of a ‘special neutral bench’ with judges who neither belong to OBC nor to unreserved category, to hear a matter pertaining to enhancement in reservation in public service filed by candidates in OBC and unreserved category candidates. Lokendra Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 540

Re-evaluation of answer sheets

If a statute governing an exam does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet, the court may still permit re-evaluation if it is demonstrated that a material error has been committed without any “inferential process of reasoning or a process of rationalisation”. Such scrutiny/ re-evolution is only to be allowed in rare and exceptional cases. (Para 5) Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553

Slum Demolition

Supreme Court declines to interfere with Delhi HC Judgment that jhuggis outside recognized clusters are not entitled to rehabilitation. Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555

Tax

Person summoned under Section 69 CGST act cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.; only remedy is under Article 226. State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552

Tribunal

Fill vacancies in Central Govt Industrial Tribunals by August 31. Labour Law Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 536

Workman

Workmen Compensation Act - Functional disability & not physical disability the determining factor to claim total disablement. Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543 : 2023 INSC 624

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378(2) - the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which proposed a mechanism for filing of appeals before the HC against acquittals in CBI cases, should not be treated as a mandate. Central Bureau of Investigations v. S.R. Ramamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 558

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378(3) - The Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which dismissed an application filed by the CBI seeking leave to appeal against order passed by the trial court acquitting three policemen who were charged of murder while patrolling, on the ground that the circumstances found do not constitute a complete chain as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons who committed the crime. (Para 32) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542 : 2023 INSC 623

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Section 69 - Power to Arrest – Anticipatory Bail - If any person is summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of recording of his statement, the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. No First Information Report gets registered before the power of arrest under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is invoked and in such circumstances, the person summoned cannot invoke Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The only way a person summoned can seek protection against the pre-trial arrest is to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 16) State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – Accused not filing petition to quash FIR / chargesheet has no relevance in deciding bail application. (Para 25 - 28) Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : 2023 INSC 637

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Special Leave Petition challenging a report of the Advisory Board / Opinion of the Board under the COFEPOSA Act is not maintainable. Union of India v. Dharanessh Raji Shetty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 547

Constitution of India, 1950 - National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 - Can parliamentary law under Article 239AA (7) alter constitutional powers of Delhi Government? Issue referred to supreme court constitution bench. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : 2023 INSC 635

Constitution of India, 1950 - PIL seeking the inclusion of "Rajasthani" language in the Eighth Schedule - Whether a language should be included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution is a policy decision which has to be taken by the appropriate constitutional authority. (Para 7) Ripudaman Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 - Clause XII Rule 7C - The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Delhi High Court that permitted re-evaluation of the answer script of a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination 2022 on the ground that there was no ‘material error’ warranting interference. (Para 5) Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 - The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court judgment which held that dwellers of jhuggis which are outside the list of recognized jhuggi clusters are not entitled to rehabilitation. Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 45 - If this opinion is read with the opinion dated 18th August 1995, it is apparent that if the change lever is not in a safety position, the firearm can be cocked by entangling with a chain. (Para 13) Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 6 - Assuming that the statements attributed to the appellant and PW-12 were in fact made, the conduct of the appellant in making the said statement becomes relevant in view of Section 6. Section 6 is applicable to facts that are not in issue. Such facts become relevant only when the same satisfies the tests laid down in Section 6. Hence, the statement of an accused to which Section 6 is applicable cannot be treated as a confession of guilt. The statement becomes relevant which can be read in evidence as it shows the conduct of the appellant immediately after the incident. (para 18) Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 238 - Electricity Act, 2003; Sections 173, 174 - Section 238 of the IBC overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 despite the latter containing two specific provisions which open with non-obstante clauses (i.e., Section 173 and 174) - The provisions of the IBC which treat the dues payable to secured creditors at a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State Government. (Para 49-53) Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534 : 2023 INSC 625

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 53 - Not all dues owed under statute are treated as ‘government’ dues - Dues payable to statutory corporations which do not fall within the description “amounts due to the central or state government” such as for instance amounts payable to corporations created by statutes which have distinct juristic entity but whose dues do not constitute government dues payable or those payable into the respective Consolidated Funds stand on a different footing. Such corporations may be operational creditors or financial creditors or secured creditors depending on the nature of the transactions entered into by them with the corporate debtor. On the other hand, dues payable or requiring to be credited to the Treasury, such as tax, tariffs, etc. which broadly fall within the ambit of Article 265 of the Constitution are ‘government dues’ and therefore covered by Section 53(1)(f) of the IBC. (Para 46) Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534 : 2023 INSC 625

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 53 - The ‘waterfall mechanism’ - The priority of claims: Firstly, insolvency resolution process costs and the liquidation costs; Secondly, workmen’s dues for the period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date and debts owed to a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security; Thirdly, wages and any unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen for the period of 12 months preceding the liquidation commencement date; Fourthly, financial debts owed to unsecured creditors; Fifthly, any amount due to the central government and the state government and debts owed to a secured creditor for any amount unpaid following the enforcement of security interest; Sixthly, any remaining debts and dues; Seventhly, preference shareholders; and Eighthly equity shareholders or partners. This hierarchy or order of priority thus accords government debts [clause (e)] and operational debts [clause (f)] lower priority than dues owed to unsecured financial creditors. (Para 27) Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534 : 2023 INSC 625

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52A - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114(g) - Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence which requires the physical presence of a Magistrate followed by an order facilitating his approval either for certifying an inventory or for a photograph taken apart from list of samples drawn - Before any proposed disposal / destruction mandate of Section 52A of the NPDS Act requires to be duly complied with starting with an application to that effect. A Court should be satisfied with such compliance while deciding the case. The onus is entirely on the prosecution in a given case to satisfy the Court when such an issue arises for consideration. Production of seized material is a factor to establish seizure followed by recovery - Provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution. Non-production of a physical evidence would lead to a negative inference within the meaning of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. (Para 6-9) Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549 : 2023 INSC 634

National Livestock Policy, 2013 - The decision regarding the prohibition of cow slaughter is for the legislature to take. The court cannot force the legislature to come out with a specific law even in its writ jurisdiction. The court also took note of the steps taken by the state governments for the protection of cows. Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 143A(1) - Where a cheque is dishonoured, the interim compensation can be directed to be paid only after the accused has pleaded not guilty. Pawan Bhasin v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 537

Penal Code, 1860; Section 299, 302 - Assuming that when the appellant approached the deceased to stop him from using the telephone, he was aware that the change lever was not in a safety position, it is not possible to attribute knowledge to him that by his failure to keep SAF in the safety position, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination, it is a case of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of IPC as the existence of none of the three ingredients incorporated therein was proved by the prosecution. (Para 19) Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - Neither PW-3 nor PW-6 could identify any of the three accused and they did not depose that the three policemen involved in the crime were those who were facing trial. PW15’s presence was not confirmed by PW3 and PW6 and his conduct of remaining silent for over a week creates a lingering doubt as to whether he was a witness set up on advise, particularly, when in his first statement was not to the investigating agency but made on an affidavit prepared by a lawyer, who simultaneously prepared three affidavits identically worded. (Para 29) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542 : 2023 INSC 623

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - The circumstance that the accused persons were required to patrol that area and had left the police station for that end on that fateful night is a circumstance which is not conclusive as to turn the tables on the accused, inasmuch as the patrolling area covered two villages. It may be possible that the accused arrived at the spot late, when the incident had already taken place, and to chase away the miscreants, fired shots from their service rifles. The circumstances ought to have formed a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the persons facing trial and none else who committed the crime. (Para 32) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542 : 2023 INSC 623

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - The deceased did not die of a rifle bullet injury. Rather, he died from a .12 bore gunshot which could not be ascribed to rifles issued to the accused persons. The continued presence of the accused at the spot is a circumstance which goes in favour of the accused, being a conduct that belies a guilty mind. According to the prosecution’s own case, the accused persons, three in number, had a rifle each with 50 rounds. Admittedly, some of the empty cartridges found at the spot, as per the ballistic expert report, were not fired from the rifle issued to the accused. This is indicative of presence of some other rifle also. Whose rifle it was, the prosecution evidence is silent. Here the circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime. In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Para 30, 31) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542 : 2023 INSC 623

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304A - There is a failure on the part of the appellant who was holding a sophisticated automatic weapon to ensure that the change lever was always kept in a safety position. This was the minimum care that he was expected to take while he approached the deceased. Thus, there is gross negligence on the part of the appellant which led to a loss of human life. (Para 20) Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622

Penal Code, 1860; Section 80 - Defence of Accident rejected - The Trial Court and the High Court held that the defense of accidental firing cannot be accepted and that the act of firing bullets by the appellant was intentional. The Court rejected the defence of the accident pleaded by the appellant by taking recourse to Section 80 of IPC. (Para 8) Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 299, 300, 304 - Difference between the two parts of Section 304 - Under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC - If the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention ', whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’. (Para 60) Anbazhagan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550 : 2023 INSC 632

Penal Code,1860; Section 34 - In the absence of any incriminating material or other corroborative evidence pointing to the participation of appellants in the incident, the conviction of appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC cannot be sustained. (Para 12) Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 546 : 2023 INSC 627

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 6 - Appellant concurrently convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act - Conviction set aside. P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538 : 2023 INSC 626

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 94 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 94 - Wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act - School transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94 (2) (i) mandate - Section 94 (2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through “an ossification test” or “any other latest medical age determination test” conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538 : 2023 INSC 626

Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Supreme Court directed all State Governments to comply with the provisions of the RPwD Act expeditiously before September 30, 2023 also to appoint Chief Commissioners for persons with disabilities by August 31, 2023. (Para 5) Seema Girija v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923; Section 2(1)(l) – It is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant (i.e., workman) has incurred total disablement. Thus, if the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement, the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act. The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause. Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement. (Para 28) Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543 : 2023 INSC 624

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Anbazhagan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550 : 2023 INSC 632
2. Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622
3. Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 546 : 2023 INSC 627
4. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542 : 2023 INSC 623
5. Central Bureau of Investigations v. S.R. Ramamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 558
6. Dr. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 544
7. Girisha Chandra Mishra v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 541
8. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : 2023 INSC 635
9. Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543
10. Labour Law Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 536
11. Lokendra Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 540
12. Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549 : 2023 INSC 634
13. Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555
14. Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535
15. P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538 : 2023 INSC 626
16. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534 : 2023 INSC 625
17. Pawan Bhasin v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 537
18. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553
19. Ripudaman Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556
20. Seema Girija v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545
21. State of Bihar v. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548
22. State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552
23. State of Tripura v. Justice (Retd.) Alok Baran Pal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 557
24. Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : 2023 INSC 637
25. Union of India v. Dharanessh Raji Shetty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 547