SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Advocate

Supreme Court 'shocked' to see lawyer filing Article 32 petition against state to recover legal fees. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Armed Forces

'Discipline is a non-negotiable condition of service in Armed Forces': Supreme Court dismisses appeal of suspended army driver who overstayed leave. Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580 : 2023 INSC 656

Bail

Supreme Court grants bail to Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in Bhima Koregaon case. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Cannot grant interim protection to accused while rejecting anticipatory bail plea : Supreme Court 'amazed' at HC's self-contradictory order. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566

'Bail orders must be backed by reasons considering vital aspects': Supreme Court sets aside 'casual & cryptical' HC order. Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560 : 2023 INSC 642

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

Anticipatory Bail - Personal liberty is important, but courts must also consider the gravity of offence & impact on society. Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514 : 2023 INSC 612

Cantonment

No legal right to seek de-sealing of property by cantonment board, when building plan not been sanctioned. Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : 2023 INSC 640

Central Excise

Self-assessment of assessee not rendered malafide merely because it was based on a CETSTAT view which was later overturned. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512 : 2023 INSC 591

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

Cinema

'Everybody is getting touchy about everything now, tolerance for films, books going down': Supreme Court dismisses plea against 'Adipurush' movie. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Civil Law

Non-Participation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights has civil consequences. Poonam Anjur Pawar vs Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579

Substantial questions of law not required to be formulated in second appeals arising out of States of Punjab & Haryana. Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562 : 2023 INSC 639

Concealment of material facts from the Court - A litigant can be nonsuited in case he is found guilty of concealing material facts from the court or misstating the same. (Para 54) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

Revenue Dept can't recover refunded cess amount because refund was based on a judgment which was later overruled. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) v. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Appropriateness of prayer sought is not an issue to be considered while deciding application seeking rejection of plaint. Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Dispute on apportionment of compensation can only be determined by 'principal civil court of original jurisdiction'. Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : 2023 INSC 606

Error which has to be detected by a long-drawn process of reasoning is not an 'error apparent on the face of record' for review. Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506 : 2023 INSC 610

Order 41 Rule 22 CPC - Cross objections have all trappings of regular appeal; must be considered in full. Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2023 INSC 594

COFEPOSA

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

Constitution

Article 136 | SLP against NCDRC's order passed in exercise of its appellate/revisional jurisdiction cannot be entertained. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649

Paradoxically, the right to vote isn't a fundamental right though democracy is an essential feature of the constitution. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641

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

State action even in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14. Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Consumer Law

Manufacturing Defect - the Supreme Court directs Ford India Ltd. to pay Rs. 42 lakhs as compensation to a consumer who purchased a car which had manufacturing defects. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. v. Medical Eleborate Concept Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Contempt of Court

Unconditional Apology - The Supreme Court granted relief to the Chairman & Managing Director and the General Manager (Human Resources) of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd, who were sentenced to 2 months simple imprisonment by the Telangana High Court for contempt of Court. Setting aside the High Court judgment in an appeal filed by the NTPC officers, held that in a case of contempt, even if the High Court came to a conclusion that there was a deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of the court, it could have considered the unconditional apology tendered by NTPC and concluded the matter. (Para 14) Gurudeep Singh v. Regonda Srinivas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530 : 2023 INSC 617

Timeline stipulated by court but the process of recruitment is the prerogative of appellant. The judgment by the High court in 2021 did not debar NTPC from issuing a fresh notification. It only directed them to finish the recruitment process within 2 months. Therefore, it would not constitute a contempt of court. In the absence of a specific direction to the effect that the recruitment be concluded in pursuance of the notification of 2017 alone, we are unable to hold that issuance of a fresh recruitment notification would constitute contempt of court. (Para 13) Gurudeep Singh v. Regonda Srinivas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530 : 2023 INSC 617

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

Murder case - 'Cruel' is a relative term; if its ordinary meaning is used, exception 4 of Section 300 IPC can never be applied. Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2023 INSC 648

Not necessary to give opportunity of hearing to person summoned u/section 319 Cr.P.C. before adding him as accused. Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Merits of evidence has to be appreciated only during trial; not at the stage of summoning the accused. Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 : 2023 INSC 654

Arnesh Kumar Guidelines - The Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines laid down for arrest under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and for other offences punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years in its 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgement - Also directed high courts and police chiefs to issue notifications and circulars in terms of the 2014 judgement to ensure strict compliance. (Para 12) Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583 : 2023 INSC 660

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

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

Attempt to culpable homicide - Conviction under section 308 IPC not sustainable if accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death. Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510 : 2023 INSC 602

Continuing trend of projecting purely civil financial dispute as criminal matter 'extremely disturbing'. Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500

Section 180 IPC can't be applied against a person for refusing to sign statement given to police : Supreme Sourt castigates DYSP. Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : 2023 INSC 595

'Downright Bizarre' : Supreme Court on High Court Judgment resulting in different jail terms for convicts in the same offence. Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2023 INSC 587

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

Delay

Justice oriented approach to be adopted while dealing with delay condonation plea. Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572 : 2023 INSC 651

Delay & Laches - Effect of – Principles explained. (Para 23 – 34) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

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

Persons with Disability Act, 1995 mandated reservation in promotions too : Supreme Court grants relief to RBI employee. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

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

Enforcement

The Supreme Court extended the term of the Director of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) till September 15 in "larger public interest". No further application would be entertained for grant of extension. The respondent will cease to be the director of ED with effect of midnight of 15th/16th September 2023. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Supreme Court Invalidates Extensions Of ED Director SK Mishra's Term; Permits Him To Continue Till July 31. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Supreme Court rejects argument that 'piecemeal’ extensions will affect independence of directors of CBI & ED; upholds amendments to CVC Act & DSPE Act. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Election

Voter has the right to know the full background of the candidate; the right to vote based on informed choice is crucial to democracy. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641

Environment

NGT cannot pass directions relying on recommendations of an expert committee without giving parties a chance to rebut it. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

Expert Opinion

The recommendations made by an expert Committee are not binding on the NGT and are only to be considered as a guide to allow the Tribunal to arrive at its decision. Experts’ opinion is only by way of assistance in arriving at a final conclusion. In the instant case the report of the expert Committee as well as the recommendations have been made the basis of the directions and such an approach is improper. (Para 17) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

Evidence

Ballistic expert evidence - In cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent. (Para 23, 24) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614

Circumstantial Evidence - The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established -There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” - The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 5-8) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614

Extra judicial confession - Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support. (Para 12) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614

Murder case based on circumstantial evidence - Death caused by firearms - In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect in the prosecution case - Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt - Accused acquitted. Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614

Child Witness- Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution. (Para 8) Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : 2023 INSC 599

Trial Courts should make proper preliminary examination of child witnesses before recording their evidence. Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : 2023 INSC 599

Forest

Right of forest inhabitants for claims against eviction to be heard by forest officer not limited to recogonized forest communities. Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507 : 2023 INSC 600

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

Import

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court who had set aside the increased quota allocated for import of raw pet-coke (RPC) based on the “Consent to Operate” (CTO) issued to the importer recording an enhanced production capacity, after the top court’s order dated 09.10.2018. The bench remarked that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) had issued the CTO for the additional quantity after the Supreme Court’s order dated 09.10.2018, where it had fixed the outer limit for import of RPC based on the total production capacity of the entities existing on the said date. The court said that since the appellant/ importer’s additional capacity was created after the Supreme Court’s order dated 09.10.2018, the same could not have been considered by the court. Sanvira Industries v. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : 2023 INSC 586

Industrial Disputes

'After allowing workmen to work for 2 decades, management cannot challenge the award': Supreme Court allows appeal of FCI workers. FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491 : 2023 INSC 588

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

The first and foremost rule of construction is the literal construction. All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision state. If the provision is unambiguous and from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statute. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear ­ The other rules of interpretation, for example, the mischief rule/ purposive construction, etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally would nullify the very object of the statute. Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistakes. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court cannot correct or make up the deficiency. (Para 24, 25) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : 2023 INSC 606

Penal Statutes - “Shall not be less than…" - When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. (Para 12) State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502 : 2023 INSC 603

Judgment

Nullification of court direction by legislation impermissible without altering basis of judgment : Supreme Court in ED director's case. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

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

Transfer - The Supreme Court clarified that its permission is not required for the High Courts to transfer Presiding officers of Special Courts dealing with cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs. (Para 5) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Labour Law

Model Standing Order - Any settlement, the employee Union enters into with the Employer would not override the Model Standing Order, unless it is more beneficial to the employees - Certified standing orders have a statutory force. The Standing Order implies a contract between the employer and the workman - The employer and workman cannot enter into a contract overriding the statutory contract embodied in the certified Standing Orders. (Para 6 - 13) Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. Jet Airways Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 564 : 2023 INSC 646

Land Acquisition

Delay - The use of the land for public purposes for the last several years is certainly a relevant factor for adopting a liberal approach while considering the prayer for condoning the delay. (Para 14) Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Land Acquisition - Once proceedings under 1894 act are held to be valid, claimant can't seek compensation under the 2013 Act. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Pavement built on acquired land encroached by vendors; Supreme Court asks DDA to take action. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Pavement built on acquired land encroached by vendors – Held, A citizen has lost his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk. (Para 18) Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Land Scams

Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an encumbrance free status. Organized criminal networks often plan and execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them to vacate their properties. These land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socio-economic progress. (Para 25) Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514 : 2023 INSC 612

Matrimonial Dispute

Power to impound passport - The Police took custody of the appellant’s passport in the exercise of powers under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and handed over the same to the Regional Passport Office. We fail to understand why the passport of the appellant was required for the purpose of the pending criminal case. Therefore, the exercise of calling upon the appellant to submit his passport was not legal. Thereafter, the passport was never impounded in exercise of power under Section 10 of the PP Act. There is nothing on record to show that the passport was seized under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. As there was neither a seizure of the passport nor impounding thereof, the appellant was entitled to return of the passport. As there was neither a seizure nor impounding of the passport, it was unauthorisedly retained by the Regional Passport Office. (Para 9, 10) Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

The appellant was aggrieved by the condition of producing the passports of his son (who is a citizen of USA) and his wife. The appellant applied for the modification of the said order insofar as it directed him to return the passports of his wife and minor son. The contention of the appellant was that the passport of his son was lost in July 2021 and that the appellant has complied with the necessary procedure to get a new passport issued. He also contended that the appellant was not in possession of the passport of his wife. The direction by the High Court to return the passports of his wife and son as a condition for the release of the appellant’s passport was completely illegal. (Para 11) Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

Medical Insurance

Once there is a valid insurance policy in favour of a person, the claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred must be paid. Once the insurance company has accepted that concealment of a disease at the time of purchasing the policy was not material as it was not related to the disease that caused death, it cannot later refuse further claims or renewal of insurance policy on the same ground. Om Prakash Ahuja v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 509 : 2023 INSC 598

Motor Vehicle

The insurance company was liable to reimburse the claimant when he had duly placed on record the evidence of him paying the medical bills of a person injured in a motor accident in respect of which there is third-party insurance coverage. (Para 15, 16) Hem Raj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 574 : 2023 INSC 644

'No negligence' finding in the final report has no bearing on the claim petition as the standard of proof is different. Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621

MV Act - Supreme Court enhances compensation of victim with 75% disability, awards compensation for loss of marriage prospects. Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Accident Claim - Physical disability must be assessed with reference to the victim's nature of work. Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2023 INSC 597

Narcotic Drugs

NDPS Act - Conviction liable to be set aside if samples weren't drawn in magistrate's presence as per Section 52A. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570

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

NDPS Act - In case of prolonged incarceration, liberty will override embargo under Section 37 : Supreme Court grants bail. Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533

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

National Security

Delay - The record reveals it is only on the prodding on the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed after more than a decade. The delay, be it for whatever reason, attributable to the judge incharge or the prosecution, has certainly compromised national interest. Expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man. Regrettably, enough vigilance was not displayed by the investigating as well as the judicial authorities. A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention. To our great dismay, we are forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of influential persons which is evident from the fact that out of several accused persons, only few have been put to trial. In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels. (Para 210) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508 : 2023 INSC 605

Natural Justice

Principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a strait-jacket formula and they would depend upon the facts of each case and the object and purpose to be achieved under a provision of law. (Para 33) Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Notings in Government File

Inter-departmental communications cannot be relied upon as a basis of claim of any right. Mere notings in the file do not amount to an order until and unless the same is communicated to the cornered party. In the present case, the Government neither passed an order nor communicated anything to the respondents regarding allotment of land. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any relief solely based on the official notings. (Para 51) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

Official Notice Doctrine

The parties must be informed of the materials relied on by an authority and must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut them. The data on which an authority is acting must be apprised to the party against whom the data is to be used as such a party would then have an opportunity not only to refute it but also supplement, explain or give a different perspective to the facts upon which the authority relies. The aforesaid doctrine applies with greater force to a judicial / adjudicatory body. (Para 16, Referred: Schwartz on Administrative Law) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

Passport

'Passport authority cannot retain passport without impounding': Supreme Court grants relief to husband in matrimonial dispute. Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

Preventive Detention

All laws on preventive detention are necessarily harsh. They curtail personal liberty of an individual, who is kept behind bars without any trial. In such cases, procedure is all a detenue has. Laws of preventive detention must therefore be strictly applied. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529

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

Property

Use of expression 'ta khubzul badlain' in sale deed by itself will not be determinative of the true nature of the transaction. Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : 2023 INSC 658

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

Rent Control & Eviction

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 - Though eviction suit can't be filed before 5 years of tenancy, the Supreme Court affirms the decree as it was passed after 38 years. Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525 : 2023 INSC 615

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

Sale

Right to repurchase - Right of repurchase assignable or transferable and cannot be treated as personal to the contracting parties - The condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so. Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable. The only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature. The assignment of obligations in a document is not possible without the consent of the other party. No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document. The benefit of contract is assignable in cases where it does not make any difference to the person on whom the obligations lies, to which of two persons he is to discharge. (Para 18-21) Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : 2023 INSC 593

SARFAESI Act

Magistrate's Order under Section 14 SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513

Service Law

The act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had found 65 employees entitled to regularization of employment but only 35 could be regularized, since only 35 posts were available. The Income Tax Department to regularize the services of the remaining entitled employees, from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized, and to pay the back wages and other consequential benefits within a period of six months. (Para 8 & 13) Raman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520

To claim backwages, initial burden is on employee to establish that he was not gainfully employed during period of dismissal. (Para 7) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503 : 2023 INSC 601

The fact whether an employee after dismissal from service was gainfully employed is something which is within his special knowledge. Considering the principle incorporated in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the initial burden is on the employee to come out with the case that he was not gainfully employed after the order of termination. It is a negative burden. However, in what manner the employee can discharge the said burden will depend upon on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It all depends on the pleadings and evidence on record. Since, it is a negative burden, in a given case, an assertion on oath by the employee that he was unemployed, may be sufficient compliance in the absence of any positive material brought on record by the employer. (Para 7) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503 : 2023 INSC 601

Even if the Court passes an order of reinstatement in service, an order of payment of back wages is not automatic. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 9) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503 : 2023 INSC 601

It is not possible to accept that for the entire period of thirteen years, the employee had no source of income. However, the employer has not come out with the case that from the date of his removal from service, the employee had another source of income. Thus, the employee discharged the burden on him by establishing that he was unemployed. (Para 9) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503 : 2023 INSC 601

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

Special Leave Petition

Whether liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach the High Court in review, automatically places the said matter in the escalation matrix, and makes the remedy of Special Leave Petition available again? - the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger Bench. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 504 : 2023 INSC 604

Tax

Tax Evasion - Reward to informers - The Supreme Court directed the reward committee constituted by the Ministry of Finance under the "Reward to Informers” policy to take a fresh decision on the amount of reward awarded to a person who gave information regarding tax evasion by news agency M/s ANI Media Pvt Ltd. Ketan Kantilal Modi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Special effects & 3d conversion services are not ‘video-tape production’ services under S. 65(120) of Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561

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

Income Tax Act - Completed / unabated assessments cannot be reopened by ao if no incriminating material is found during search. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532

Taxation Classification - Specific provision will prevail over general provision in a statute : Supreme Court in ‘Maize Starch’ case. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Terrorism

Mere possession of extremist literature not 'terrorist activity' under UAPA; No 'credible evidence' against Vernon & Arun. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Expeditious trial of terror attack cases necessary: Supreme Court says delay in 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case compromised national security. Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508 : 2023 INSC 605

Terrorism and Disruptive Activities - Expeditious Trial of terror attack cases necessary - Delay in 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case compromised national security – The Supreme Court while sentencing to life imprisonment without remission four Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) militants convicted for their role in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast, not only underscored the importance of speedy trials, but also considered the time elapsed since the terror attack as well as the date of conviction as mitigating circumstances in not awarding the death penalty. (Para 208) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508 : 2023 INSC 605

1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case - The bomb blast caused at the behest of the accused persons resulted in the death of 13 persons and 38 persons suffered injuries. There was further damage caused to the livelihood of the shopkeepers, whose shops were burnt down due to the said bomb blast. It is evident that these accused persons were part of the plan for future blasts in the nation as well. The incident took place on May 21, 1996, i.e., approximately 27 years ago, the trial court awarded the sentence of death on April 22, 2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases. (Para 208) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508 : 2023 INSC 605

Tribunal

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

Unlawful Activities

UAPA - 'Watali' precedent won't apply if evidence is of low probative value on surface level analysis. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Violence

Supreme Court dismisses West Bengal govt's plea challenging HC direction to transfer ram navami violence cases to NIA. State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : 2023 INSC 647

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

Writ Petition

Writ petition not maintainable when civil suit for same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Army Act, 1950 - Discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a nonnegotiable condition of service. (Para 10) Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580 : 2023 INSC 656

Cantonments Act, 2006 - A property sealed by Cantonment Board alleging unauthorized construction cannot be requested to be ‘de-sealed’, while the building plan of that Property has not yet been sanctioned by the Cantonment. (Para 15) Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : 2023 INSC 640

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 11A(1) - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the CESTAT by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time barred. The court dismissed the contention that Reliance had deliberately suppressed and withheld material information and documents from the departmental officers by not filing the same and thus, the ground for invoking the extended period of limitation available under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available to the Department. The bench held that during the relevant period in consideration, i.e., September 2000 to March 2004, Reliance was holding a bonafide belief that it was correctly discharging its duty liability by relying on the CESTAT’s decision dated 28.7.2000 in the case of M/s IFGL Refractories Ltd, even though the same was overturned by the Supreme Court on 9.8.2005. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512 : 2023 INSC 591

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003; Section 25(d) - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Section 4B(1) – Held, as illegal the extension given to the term of Enforcement Directorate Chief for violating the mandate of the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment in the Common Cause case that he should not be given further extension. However, the Court allowed him to continue in his post till July 31, 2023, taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Union Government regarding peer review of the international body Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and smooth transfer of power. (Para 116, 119 & 121) Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003; Section 25(d) - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Section 4B(1) - Upheld the amendments which allow the Centre to extend the term of the heads of ED and CBI up to 5 years. The scope of judicial review over legislation is very limited and that the appointments of these officers are made by a high-level committee, the Court upheld these amendments, opining that there are sufficient safeguards. Extension can be granted to high-level officials in the public interest and with reasons in writing. (Para 90 - 94) Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sometimes the cinematic representations may not be an exact replica of text and there has to be a little play in the same. That however, does not go beyond certain limits is a reason why a body has been constituted to look into these aspects under the Act. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 23 Rule 1 - A writ petition, filed pursuant to withdrawal of a civil suit for the same relief when liberty is not granted to file afresh, is not maintainable. The principles of constructive res judicata laid down in Order 23 Rule 1 CPC would also apply to writ proceedings. (Para 38) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Whether an appropriate prayer should have sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit and not an issue to be considered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. (Para 5) Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11, Order XII Rule 6 - Rejection of Election Petition - Judgement on Admissions - A plain look at the election petition reveals that apart from allegations pertaining to non-disclosure of criminal cases pending against the appellant, or cases where he was convicted, other averments and allegations have been made regarding non-compliance with stipulations regarding information dissemination and the manner of dissemination through publication in newspapers, the font size, the concerned newspapers’ reach amongst the populace, etc. The alleged noncompliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations (in the context of provisions of law and the non-disclosure of all other particulars mandated by the Election Symbols orders) has to be considered after a full trial. The admission of certain facts (and not all) by the election petitioner cannot be sufficient for the court to reject the petition, wholly. Even in respect of the undeniable nature of the judicial record, the effect of its content is wholly inadequate to draw a decree in part. (Para 26) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 22 - In cases where the decree passed by the court of first instance is in favor of the respondent in whole, in such circumstance, no remedy exists in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal can be vested onto a party, which is successful. However, in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance, is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also partly against the respondent, two remedies within Order 41 Rule 22 remain with the respondent, which are (i) To file their cross objections and, (ii) To support the decree in whole. A third remedy in law also exists, which is the right to file a cross appeal, which will also be discussed in brief - In cases where the opposing party files a first appeal against part or whole of the original decree, and the respondent in the said first appeal, due to part or whole of the decree being in their favour, abstains from filing an appeal at the first instance, in such cases, to ensure that the respondent is also given a fair chance to be heard, he is given the right to file his cross objections within the appeal already so instituted by the other party, against not only the contentions raised by the other party, but also against part or whole of the decree passed by the court of first instance - In a similar circumstance, where the other party in the first instance has preferred an appeal, apart from the remedy of cross objections, the respondent can also file a cross appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party. The respondent also has the right to fully support the original decree passed by the lower court in full. (Para 12-16) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2023 INSC 594

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 22 - While cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same. (Para 17) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2023 INSC 594

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1, Rule 9 - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court where the court had held that where the assessee had been held entitled to the refund of the Educational cess and Secondary & Higher Educational cess on the basis of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in M/s SRD Nutrients (P) Limited vs. CCE, (2018) 1 SCC 105, which was applicable at the relevant time, the Revenue Department was not entitled to make recovery of the said refunded amount on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492, where the decision in M/s SRD Nutrients was overruled by the top court. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) v. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 32 - It cannot be said that nonparticipation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights is absolutely impactless. In fact, it has civil consequences - Transfer petition filed by wife allowed. Poonam Anjur Pawar vs Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Punjab Courts Act, 1918; Section 41 - In appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of CPC. (Para 8, 9) Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562 : 2023 INSC 639

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC - Ordinarily, in a second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court. However, this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone - Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such finding. (Para 14, 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114; Order XLVII Rule 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII of Part IV - An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record - An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (Para 9-15) Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506 : 2023 INSC 610

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 and Order XLI - The court of first appeal has a duty to record its findings qua all the issues raised before it, and in cases where the High Court fails to do the same, the matter must be remanded to the same court again for fresh adjudication. (Para 20-22) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2023 INSC 594

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 102, 104 - the power under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound a passport. The reason is that the provisions of the PP Act which deal with the specific subject of impounding passports shall prevail over Section 104 of Cr.P.C. Moreover, under Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C., the Police have the power to seize the passport but there is no power to impound the same. Even if the power of seizure of a passport is exercised under Section 102, the Police cannot withhold the said document and the same must be forwarded to the Passport Authority. It is, thereafter, for the Passport Authority to decide whether the passport needs to be impounded. (Para 8) Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 222 (2) - Court can consider whether the accused has committed any other offence which is a minor offence in comparison to the offence for which he is tried. (Para 13) Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510 : 2023 INSC 602

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - The contention that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial is clearly not contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C - The principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read into Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The lateral entry of a person summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only to face the trial along with other accused. (Para 32-34) Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - The merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the witnesses and scrutiny of the Court. This is not to be done at the stage of Section 319 - Scope and ambit discussed. (Para 4-5) Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 : 2023 INSC 654

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 428 - Anticipatory Bail - Self-Contradictory orders passed by the High Court - On the one hand, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected and, on the other hand, the interim protection is granted for a period of two months - Appeal allowed and interim protection direction set aside. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome. (Para 19) Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514 : 2023 INSC 612

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 438 - the High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the accused and imposing payment of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh) as a condition precedent for grant of bail. (Para 29) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : 2023 INSC 596

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - the process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service for settling a civil dispute. (Para 27) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : 2023 INSC 596

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Willingness of accused to deposit money as bail condition must be considered only in cases involving public money; not in private cases. (Para 26) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : 2023 INSC 596

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - An order granting bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the vice of nonapplication of mind, rendering it illegal. (Para 19) Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560 : 2023 INSC 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - The primary considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail are: (i) The seriousness of the offence; (ii) The likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iii) The impact of the release of the accused on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. (Para 18) Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560 : 2023 INSC 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - While considering an application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused. (Para 22) Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560 : 2023 INSC 642

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, ~ conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. (Para 17) Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : 2023 INSC 595

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Trend of projecting a purely civil financial dispute as a criminal matter with a view to intimidate and in abuse of the criminal process - In “Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.”, (2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court had noticed that taking recourse to criminal law by bypassing statutory remedies to bring the financial institutions on their knees, has the inherent potentiality to affect the marrows of economic health of the nation. Further, in “Vijay Kumar Ghai & Anr. Vs. State of W.B. & Ors.” (2022) 7 SCC 124, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings being abuse of law in a purely civil financial dispute and being a case of forum shopping. Despite these judgments, continuation of such a trend appears extremely disturbing. Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482, 397 - The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge / proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or Section 482 Cr. P.C. or together. (Para 17) Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : 2023 INSC 595

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 319, 190 - The exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not at the initial stage where cognizance is taken of the offence and the summoning order is passed before committal of the matter to the Sessions Court. That power exercised under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. is quite distinct from the power exercised by the Trial Court/Sessions Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C - Scope of Section 319 CrPC discussed. (Para 22-27) Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 319, 227 - When power is exercised the under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a person to be added as an accused in the trial to be tried along with other accused, such a person cannot seek discharge as the court would have exercised the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on a satisfaction derived from the evidence that has emerged during the evidence recorded in the course of trial and such satisfaction is of a higher degree than the satisfaction which is derived by the court at the time of framing of charge. (Para 24) Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652

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 - Democracy has been held to be a part of one of the essential features of the Constitution. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the right to vote has not been recognized as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right. (Para 27) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - An order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside. (Para 20) Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560 : 2023 INSC 642

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope and grant of special leave - the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation. But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should not entertain a petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed. The limitation, whatever they be, are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. The power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of overriding constitutional powers. (Para 24) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Nullification of Court direction by legislation impermissible without altering basis of judgment. (Para 114) Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The State action irrespective of being in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14 of the Constitution - The fact that a dispute falls into the contractual realm does not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the requirements of Article 14 - When a power exists to effectuate a purpose it must be exercised within a reasonable time. (Para 36) Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (4) - Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002; Section 19 and 21 - The detenue had made his representation before the authorities. The decision was taken by the Advisory Board without considering the representation. To that extent, the decision of the Advisory Board and subsequent decision of the State Government extending the period of detention becomes bad as the statutory procedural requirement have not been complied with. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse - The introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 26-30) Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507 : 2023 INSC 600

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Appeal against order of National Commission - the petitioner to first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of course, after the High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of the parties to thereafter come before the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 38) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - The petitioner was the Additional Advocate General of State of Uttar Pradesh seeking a writ of mandamus against the State Government to clear the bills of his outstanding professional fees. According to the State, all the outstanding bills have been disbursed to the petitioner. Held, a serious doubt whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India should be entertained at the instance of an advocate representing the State for recovery of his fees and that also when there is a serious dispute about the entitlement of the petitioner to receive fees based on certain bills. Therefore, unable to pass any further orders on this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, the other available remedies of the petitioner are expressly kept open which he can avail in accordance with law. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Constitution of India, 1950; Section 32 - Revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification in respect of feature film ‘Adipurush’ for hurting religious sentiments and for distorting the sacred text – Held, it is inappropriate to interfere with film certifications based on the sensitivities of each individual. The Court should not become some kind of an appellate authority for the censor board. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Constitution of India; Article 16 - the intention of Article 16 was not to compromise on administrative efficiency. A certain portion (promotion) cannot be reserved for a certain class of citizen and not the others who were also initially appointed on the basis of horizontal reservation, the only exception being SC/ST appointees as envisaged in Article 16(4A). (Para 11, S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 21(a)(i) - Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Section 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) - Appeal against order of National Commission - An aggrieved party can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for grant of special leave to appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) only if it is passed by the Commission in its original jurisdiction. No further appeal will lie against the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. (Para 17) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 12 - Doctor’s license cannot be suspended as penalty in contempt proceedings. (Para 19 -21) Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 577 : 2023 INSC 653

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 118 - Criminal Trial - Child Witness - Trial Judge's duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers to the questions put to him - The Trial Judge must also record his opinion that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why he is of the opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth. Before recording evidence of a minor, it is the duty of a Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to him with a view to ascertain whether the minor can understand the questions put to him and is in a position to give rational answers. The Judge must be satisfied that the minor is able to understand the questions and respond to them and understands the importance of speaking the truth. Therefore, the role of the Judge who records the evidence is very crucial. He has to make a proper preliminary examination of the minor by putting appropriate questions to ascertain whether the minor is capable of understanding the questions put to him and is able to give rational answers. It is advisable to record the preliminary questions and answers so that the Appellate Court can go into the correctness of the opinion of the Trial Court. (Para 7-9) Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : 2023 INSC 599

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

Finance Act, 1994; Sections 65(105) (zi), 65(119), 65(120), 66 - Export of Service Rules, 2005 - Service Tax Rules, 1994 - The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the 3D conversion services provided by the assessee, including services such as ‘imparting special effects’, ‘post production service’, ‘digital asset management and content service’ and ‘digital restoration service’, will not fall under the ambit of ‘video-tape production’ under Section 65(120) of Finance Act, 1994. While adjudicating the service tax demand raised on the assessee, the CESTAT found that there was no evidence that the material received by the respondent/ assessee, M/s Prime Focus Ltd, from its clients was recorded in video or that the assessee had, at any time, handled video as media. The Tribunal had thus held that the assessee was entitled for exemption as exports as it had exported services in accordance with Export of Service Rules, 2005 and Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Forest Act, 1927 - Claims againt eviction - In Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 1986 4 SCC 753, certain Adivasi communities inhabiting the situate land were being evicted from their homes on grounds of the said land being subject to a Section 4 notification under the Forest Act. It was held that the said inhabitants had a right for their claims to be heard by the Forest Officer, and it was the forest officer, who had the power to go into the merits of the case and decide the claims of the inhabitants - whether the relief granted in the Judgment of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh is only applicable to SC/ST/ other backward communities? Banwasi Judgment (Supra), only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if such authority rejects a claim, then the said claim cannot exist against the situate land. This right to be heard, in our opinion, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim. Further, the right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc. If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same. (Para 17-23) Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507 : 2023 INSC 600

General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu); Sections 3(2), 28-A; Schedule I, Part B (Taxation Entry No.61) and Schedule III, Part B (Exemption Entry No.8) - Classification and taxability of ‘maize starch’ under the TNGST Act for the assessment year, i.e., 1998-99 - If in any statutory rule or statutory notification, two expressions are used - one in general words and the other in special terms – then, as per the rules of interpretation, the special terms are not meant to be included in the general expression. Where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 132, 132A, 147, 148, 153A - In view of the judgment of the Supreme court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., [(2023) SCC Online SC 481], an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make additions to assessee’s income in respect of completed / unabated assessments if no incriminating material has been found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, in terms of the said judgment, the completed / unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned under the said provisions - Therefore, AO’s powers under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act were saved in terms of Supreme Court’s judgment in Abhisar Buildwell (2023). Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Sections 10(1)(d), 17B and 25F - Having allowed the workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, the management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to the Award, merely because it made its compliance with the Award conditional long ago. In the light of their absorption in regular service, these workmen, who may have otherwise opted for employment opportunities elsewhere, altered their position and remained with the FCI. Having placed them in that position, it is no longer open to the management of FCI to seek to turn back the clock. (Para 16) FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491 : 2023 INSC 588

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

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Once it is found that the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are valid, then the claimant is not entitled to seek compensation under the 2013 Act. If the state has either paid compensation or taken possession then proceedings under 1894 would continue to be valid. (Para 5, 17) Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Limitation Act, 1962; Section 5 - Justice oriented approach rather than the iron- cast technical approach to be adopted - Supreme Court restored an appeal before lower appellate court which had dismissed it on the ground that the delay of 52 days was not properly explained. (Para 3-6) Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572 : 2023 INSC 651

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Appellant was working as a gunman. On account of amputation of his right leg above the knee, he was terminated from service. It is not a matter of dispute that a person with his right leg amputated cannot perform the duty of a gunman. This is his functional disability. The Tribunal was right in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 100% and assessing the compensation accordingly. The High Court was in error in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 80%. (Para 10) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2023 INSC 597

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - In cases of motor accident claims, the physical disability caused due to an accident must be judged with reference to the nature of the work being done by the injured for assessing award of compensation. (Para 9) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2023 INSC 597

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be the end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. (Para 9) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2023 INSC 597

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Disability - Inability of the Claimant to work due to the disability cannot be denied on the ground that his Employer was not examined or no letter was produced from the Employer. The evidence of disability such as disability certificate and identity card issued by Directorate for the Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens, cannot be brushed aside. (Para 9) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Marriage Prospects - On account of the injuries sustained claimant has suffered 75% whole body disability. He has clearly deposed that on account of the injuries sustained and consequential disability suffered his marriage prospects have become bleak. Even in the affidavit filed on 30.09.2022 he has deposed that he has remained unmarried and none has come forward to marry him. In other words, the prospects of appellant getting married would remain a dream and for loss of the same he has to be suitably awarded compensation. Hence, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the “loss of marriage prospects. (Para 11) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Pain and Suffering - Enhanced the compensation towards ‘Pain and Suffering’ to additional Rs. 50,000/, while observing that the Claimant was hospitalized for ten days and was in continuous treatment thereafter. (Para 8) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Salary - Compensation on the aspect of salary to be revised as per the amount mentioned in salary certificate. Claimant has deposed that he was working as Marketing Executive in a private company and drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. as per salary certificate. No doubt claimant did not examine his employer. On this ground, it cannot be gain said by the Insurer that claimant was unable to earn or was not earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. The accident in question had occurred in the year 2007. Even a mason at that point of time was earning not less than Rs.300/- per day or in other words Rs.9,000/- p.m. during 2007. Claimant being a graduate and working as Marketing Executive, his plea of salary being Rs.8,000/- p.m. deserves to be accepted, as it is within proximity of truth and same could not have been ignored by the Tribunal and the High Court on hyper technical grounds. (Para 10) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 15.9 Lakhs from the previous amount of Rs. 2.3 Lakhs, to a motor vehicle accident victim, who sustained 75% whole body injury. The Bench has additionally granted compensation towards ‘loss of marriage prospects’ since the Claimant remained unmarried due to disability. (Para 11, 13) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - While considering a petition for compensation for death or injury in a road accident, the standard of proof to be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is the preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would not apply. The final report in the criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits. (Para 9, 10) Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - In case of prolonged incarceration, conditional liberty will override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the Act. Prolonged incarceration is against fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, ie, protection of life and personal liberty. (Para 4) Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533

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

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 52-A - the process of drawing of samples under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. The entire exercise of collecting the sample must be certified by the Magistrate to be correct. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Principles of Natural Justice - Expert Opinion - the National Green Tribunal (NGT) being an adjudicatory body must comply with the principles of natural justice. If the NGT intends to rely on the report of an expert Committee or any other material that is brought to its knowledge, the concerned party must be informed of it in advance, and be given an opportunity for discussion and rebuttal. (Para 16) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - The appellants were not given an opportunity to file their objections to the recommendations of the Expert Committee. The Court noted that the recommendations were uploaded on 15.01.2022 and the Tribunal passed its final order on 18.01.2022, i.e, only three days later. Accordingly, on the ground of noncompliance of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the NGT for re-consideration from the stage of recommendation of the Expert Committee. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 19(1) - Principles of Natural Justice - the NGT is a judicial body and therefore exercises adjudicatory function. The very nature of an adjudicatory function would carry with it the requirement that principles of natural justice are complied with, particularly when there is an adversarial system of hearing of the cases before the Tribunal or for that matter before the Courts in India. The NGT though is a special adjudicatory body constituted by an Act of Parliament, nevertheless, the discharge of its function must be in accordance with law which would also include compliance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in Section 19(1) of the Act. (Para 15) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

National Highways Authority Act, 1956; Section 3H - Apportionment under sub­clause (4) of Section 3H of the Act 1956 is not a revaluation but a distribution of the value already fixed among the several persons interested in the land acquired in accordance with the nature and quantum of the respective interests. In ascertainment of those interests, the determination of their relative importance and the manner in which they can be said to have contributed to the total value fixed are questions to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law governing the rights of the parties. The actual rule for apportionment has to be formulated in each case so as to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the total value or compensation among the persons interested in the land. (Para 28) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : 2023 INSC 606

National Highways Authority Act, 1956; Section 3H - When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge ­If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the summary power, vesting in the competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of sub­section (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. The dispute being of the nature triable by the Civil Court that the law steps in to provide for that to be referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court. (Para 33-34) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : 2023 INSC 606

National Investigating Agency Act, 2008; Section 6 - The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the investigation in six FIRs related to Ram Navami violence from March 31 to April 3 to the National Investigation Agency. In the present case, after the High Court's order, the Central Government has exercised its suo motu powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act to ask the NIA to investigate these cases. The Centre's subsequent notification has not been challenged by the State Government. Section 6(1) of the NIA Act casts an obligation on the part of the police officer to inform the State Government about any scheduled offence and later, the State Government is obliged to forward such information to the Central Government. However, the power of the Central Government to refer the investigation to the NIA is not constrained by the report submitted by the State Government. (Para 7 – 10) State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : 2023 INSC 647

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

Passports Act, 1967; Section 10 - Without impounding of the passport, the Passport Authority cannot unauthorizedly retain a passport handed over by the Police in the name of a pending criminal case. (Para 11) Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 411, 436 and 120B - Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Section 5 - In view of the severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. (Para 212- 213) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508 : 2023 INSC 605

Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A, 323 / 504 / 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Section 3 & 4 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Matrimonial Offences - Denial of anticipatory bail and a further direction to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail – Held, there are no startling features or elements that stand out or any exceptional fact disentitling the appellant to the grant of anticipatory bail. Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court. Therefore, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside. (Para 12) Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583 : 2023 INSC 660

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 4 to Section 300 - The term 'cruel manner' is a relative term. Exception 4 applies when a man kills another. By ordinary standards, this itself is a cruel act - If we assign a meaning to the word ‘cruel’ used in exception which is used in common parlance, in no case exception 4 can be applied. (Para 11) Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2023 INSC 648

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - For attracting the offence under Section 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly -Any specific individual role or act is not material. No overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly. (Para 4) Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 : 2023 INSC 654

Penal Code, 1860; Section 180 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement - Section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign. (Para 22) Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : 2023 INSC 595

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 and 304 Part 1 - Appellant's conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC. Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2023 INSC 648

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 304 Part II and 149 - Different sentence for the convicts for the same offence - The impugned judgment fell into error in not considering the gravity of the offence. Having held all the accused criminally liable, under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and also not having found any distinguishing feature in the form of separate roles played by each of them, the imposition of the “sentence undergone” criteria, amounted to an aberration, and the sentencing is for that reason, flawed. This court is, therefore, of the view that given the totality of circumstances (which includes the fact that the accused have been at large for the past four years), the appropriate sentence would be five years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 16) Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2023 INSC 587

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 308 - Attempt to Culpable Homicide - Conviction under section 308 IPC not sustainable if accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death. Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510 : 2023 INSC 602

Penal Code, 1860; Section 338 - Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others - At that relevant time, the bus was overcrowded. There were a number of passengers waiting at the bus stop. Therefore, it was the duty of the conductor to take care of the passengers. Hence, before he rang the bell and gave a signal to the driver to start the bus, he ought to have verified whether all passengers had safely boarded the bus. He could have ascertained this from accused no.3 – cleaner who was standing near the door of the bus. However, he did not take that precaution and care which he was under an obligation to take. Therefore, the accused acted rashly and negligently as he did not perform his duty of being careful. The accused knew that at the relevant bus stop, a large number of students were waiting to take the bus to reach their school and therefore, the accused ought to have verified whether all the passengers had properly boarded the bus before giving the signal to the driver. However, he did not verify whether the passengers had properly boarded the bus. Therefore, he is guilty of negligence as he failed to perform his duty. In fact, this was an act of recklessness on his part. The fact is that due to the negligence on the part of the accused, human life was endangered. (Para 14) Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510 : 2023 INSC 602

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - It is considered appropriate to remind the high courts and the sessions courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while seeking bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC. and incorporating a condition in that behalf for deposit/payment as a pre-requisite for grant of bail. (Para 2) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : 2023 INSC 596

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail. (Para 26) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : 2023 INSC 596

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

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Reservation in Promotions - the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct RBI to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion to an employee with disability, who was denied the same for a long time. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Issue of the RBI not condoning the shortfall of marks - It was rather harsh on the part of the RBI to apply the same standards for general candidates and those with disabilities. RBI, as a model employer, ought to have taken an informed decision in this regard commensurate with the aspirations of persons with disabilities. (Para 48, Dipankar Datta; J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – the Act, 1995 did not contain any express provision for reservation to persons with disabilities serving in the feeder cadre, though there were provisions indicating that merely because an employee is one living with a disability, they ought not to be denied promotion. However, mere absence of an express mandate for reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities did not absolve the Government from keeping reserved vacancies on promotional posts. (Para 13 & 16, Dipankar Datta; J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - In 2003, the employee had appeared in the All India Merit Test to secure promotion to a Class-I post. But he fell short of the qualifying marks by 3 marks. He made representations seeking condonation of the shortfall marks, which were not considered. The Supreme granted notional promotion to him to the post of Assistant Manager Grade A from the date of presentation of his writ petition before the Bombay High Court (27th Sept, 2006) and actual promotion from the last date for compliance of the order of the High Court (15th Sept, 2014). The Bench granted two months’ time to complete the process and four months’ time to compute and release the monetary benefits accruing to him. It also clarified that in two years when he retires, in computing his retiral benefits his promotion from 27th Sept, 2006 should be taken into consideration. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Rajasthan); Section 14 (3) - the objective of section 14(3) of the Act was to safeguard the interest of tenants. As per the provision, Eviction suit cannot be filed by landlord within 5 years of tenancy. However, the court opined that even though in this case, the eviction suit was filed within 5 years, 38 years have gone by since then. This itself would cure the defect in the eviction suit. (Para 16, 18) Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525 : 2023 INSC 615

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6, in its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence. (Para 12) State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502 : 2023 INSC 603

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 6 - Accused had put his penis into mouth of the victim aged about 10 years and discharged semen - The accused has committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault as he has committed penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years. (Para 7-11) State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502 : 2023 INSC 603

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

Representation of People Act, 1951 - Democracy being an essential feature of the Constitution and the right to vote being a statutory right, the voter has the right to know about the full background of a candidate. (Para 28) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641

Representation of People Act, 1951 - the right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. (Para 27) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641

Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 33A, 33B - Disclosure of past criminal antecedents of every candidate - Providing information is vital for a vibrant and functioning democracy. (Para 13) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641

Representation of People Act, 1951; Sections 81, 84 r/w. 100(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) & (iv) – the appellant questions judgment and order of the High Court dismissing an application which sought rejection of the election petition – Held, If the appellant’s contentions were to be accepted, there would be a denial of a full-fledged trial, based on the acknowledgement that material facts were not suppressed. Whether the existence of a criminal case, where a charge has not been framed, in relation to an offence which does not possibly carry a prison sentence, or a sentence for a short spell in prison, and whether conviction in a case, where penalty was imposed, are material facts, are contested. This court would be pre-judging that issue because arguendo if the effect of withholding some such information is seen as insignificant, by itself, that would not negate the possibility of a conclusion based on the cumulative impact of withholding of facts and non-compliance with statutory stipulations (which is to be established in a trial). For these reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. (Para 28) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641

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

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Section 33 and 34 - Reasonable accommodation ought not to open gates for demands by those benefitting other kinds of horizontal reservation, for reservation in promotional vacancies in public services. (Para 14, S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - Magistrate's Order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC when there is a remedy under the SARFAESI Act. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513

Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (Orissa); Section 15(b) - There is huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of their appropriate remedy. Record of rights was finalised in 1962. As admitted in the writ petition, objections were filed by the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest before that. Remedy, after publication of the final record of rights, was revision under Section 15(b) of the 1958 Act, to be filed within one year. No remedy was availed of. Nearly three decades after finalisation of record of rights, application was filed before the Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable after final record of rights is published. When no relief was granted by the Settlement Officer, the respondents kept quiet for 13 years before filing a civil suit in the year 2003. It was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2007. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008, which is the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal. The aforesaid facts show that the writ petition to claim relief was filed after 46 years of finalisation of record of rights, which was highly belated. Hence, the respondents were not entitled to any relief. (Para 34) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - Sale deed - Normally, on the execution and registration of a sale deed containing recitals regarding the payment of consideration and delivery of possession, the sale is complete even if the sale price is not paid and, therefore, it will not be possible to cancel the sale deed in its entirety. However, the exception to the said rule is the practice of ta khubzul badlain. The use of the expression ta khubzul badlain in a sale deed by itself will not be determinative of the true nature of the transaction. It cannot be read in isolation. All the terms and conditions and recitals in the document will have to be considered to decide the real nature of the transaction. (Para 13) Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : 2023 INSC 658

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002 - In National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 held that the expression “prima facie true” would mean that the materials / evidence collated by the investigating agency in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the chargesheet must prevail, unless overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, materials must show complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offences. What this ratio contemplates is that on the face of it, the accusation against the accused ought to prevail. In our opinion, however, it would not satisfy the prima facie “test” unless there is at least surface-analysis of probative value of the evidence, at the stage of examining the question of granting bail and the quality or probative value satisfies the Court of its worth. In the case of the appellants, contents of the letters through which the appellants are sought to be implicated are in the nature of hearsay evidence, recovered from co-accused. Moreover, no covert or overt terrorist act has been attributed to the appellants in these letters, or any other material forming part of records of these two appeals. Reference to the activities of the accused are in the nature of ideological propagation and allegations of recruitment. No evidence of any of the persons who are alleged to have been recruited or have joined this “struggle” inspired by the appellants has been brought before us. Thus, we are unable to accept NIA’s contention that the appellants have committed the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation. (Para 36) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002 - In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the factors for granting bail under normal circumstances were discussed. It was held that the nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail. Juxtaposing the appellants’ case founded on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for granting bail. Allegations against them no doubt are serious, but for that reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While dealing with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, we have referred to the materials available against them at this stage. These materials cannot justify continued detention of the appellants, pending final outcome of the case under the others provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act. (Para 43) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002 - Mere participation in seminars by itself cannot constitute an offence under the bail-restricting Sections of the 1967 Act. (Para 29) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002; Section 43D - A bail restricting clause cannot denude the jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court in testing if continued detention in a given case would breach the concept of liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would apply in a case where such a bail-restricting clause is being invoked on the basis of materials with prima facie low-probative value or quality. (Para 42 - 43) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002; Section 15 - Mere possession of literature even if it inspires or propagates violence by itself would neither amount to a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act, nor any other offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. (Para 26) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655

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. Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510 : 2023 INSC 602
2. Anbazhagan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550 : 2023 INSC 632
3. Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506 : 2023 INSC 610
4. Arvind Kumar v. State, NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539 : 2023 INSC 622
5. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 519
6. Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. Jet Airways Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 564 : 2023 INSC 646
7. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : 2023 INSC 641
8. Boini Mahipal v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 546 : 2023 INSC 627
9. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542 : 2023 INSC 623
10. Central Bureau of Investigations v. S.R. Ramamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 558
11. Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : 2023 INSC 645
12. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) v. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522
13. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561
14. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512 : 2023 INSC 591
15. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620
16. Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : 2023 INSC 594
17. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616
18. Dr. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 544
19. Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580 : 2023 INSC 656
20. FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491 : 2023 INSC 588
21. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. v. Medical Eleborate Concept Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 515
22. Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500
23. Girisha Chandra Mishra v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 541
24. Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 577 : 2023 INSC 653
25. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : 2023 INSC 635
26. Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562 : 2023 INSC 639
27. Gursewak Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2023 INSC 648
28. Gurudeep Singh v. Regonda Srinivas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530 : 2023 INSC 617
29. Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507 : 2023 INSC 600
30. Hem Raj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 574 : 2023 INSC 644
31. Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : 2023 INSC 593
32. Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543 : 2023 INSC 624
33. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 578
34. Ketan Kantilal Modi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 581
35. Labour Law Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 536
36. Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611
37. Lokendra Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 540
38. Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505
39. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559
40. Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549 : 2023 INSC 634
41. Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555
42. Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535
43. Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621
44. Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583 : 2023 INSC 660
45. Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508 : 2023 INSC 605
46. Om Prakash Ahuja v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 509 : 2023 INSC 598
47. P. Yuvaprakash v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 538 : 2023 INSC 626
48. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534 : 2023 INSC 625
49. Pawan Bhasin v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 537
50. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513
51. Poonam Anjur Pawar v. Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579
52. Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : 2023 INSC 599
53. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529
54. Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514 : 2023 INSC 612
55. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532
56. Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614
57. Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533
58. Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572 : 2023 INSC 651
59. Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : 2023 INSC 640
60. Raman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520
61. Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503 : 2023 INSC 601
62. Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : 2023 INSC 596
63. Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525 : 2023 INSC 615
64. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553
65. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613
66. Ripudaman Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556
67. Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560 : 2023 INSC 642
68. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 504 : 2023 INSC 604
69. Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517
70. Sandeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573 : 2023 INSC 654
71. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499
72. Sanvira Industries v. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : 2023 INSC 586
73. Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : 2023 INSC 597
74. Seema Girija v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545
75. Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570
76. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618
77. State of Bihar v. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548
78. State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552
79. State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619
80. State of Tripura v. Justice (Retd.) Alok Baran Pal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 557
81. State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502 : 2023 INSC 603
82. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566
83. State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 569 : 2023 INSC 647
84. Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494 : 2023 INSC 595
85. Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : 2023 INSC 637
86. Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2023 INSC 587
87. Union of India v. Dharanessh Raji Shetty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 547
88. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : 2023 INSC 649
89. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : 2023 INSC 655
90. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523
91. Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : 2023 INSC 606
92. Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576 : 2023 INSC 652
93. Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : 2023 INSC 658