SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Advocate

Bar Council of India can prescribe that only graduates from recognized law colleges can enrol as advocates. Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 481

Bail

Bail - Condition to furnish bank guarantee for granting bail is unsustainable in law. Karandeep Singh v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Company Law

Companies Act - Decision to allot additional shares cannot be set aside merely because promoters have also benefited. Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel v. Ambika Food Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 490

Competition

Competition Act applicable to Coal India Ltd. Coal India Ltd v. Competition Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 484

Consumer Law

Railways not liable for theft of passenger's belongings - the theft of personal belongings of a Passenger is not “deficiency of service” by Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible. The Supreme court set aside orders passed by Consumer forum whereby Railways was directed to reimburse the stolen amount of cash to the Passenger. Station Superintendent v. Surender Bhola, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 487

Corruption

Approver need not be examined as witness by magistrate when cognizance is taken by Special Court under PC Act. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Criminal Law

Section 197 Cr.P.C. - Sanction required even for acts done in excess of official duty. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Person not named in the FIR can be added as accused if there's sufficient evidence of his involvement. Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Judicial Service

Petitioner, a retired Judicial Officer, stood retired from service on 31.07.2021 and chargesheet was served on 11/16.10.2021 and this is for the period when the petitioner served as a Registrar from 28.06.2012 to 03.10.2015, and that it is indisputedly beyond the period of four years of such institution - Chargesheet served on the petitioner dated 11/16.10.2021 is in clear breach of the mandate of Rule 7 of Rules 1992 - the chargesheet dated 11/16.10.2021 and other consequential departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner stand quashed - the judicial officer was entitled to all retirement benefits. Suchismita Mishra v. High Court of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 477

Murder Trial

Supreme Court acquits father-son duo in a 27 years old murder case by according benefit of doubt. Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Partition

Findings relating to title in a simple suit for partition cannot bind third parties. Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Police

Supreme Court says Punjab Police Rules outdated in terms of current hierarchy of police force; directs remedial measures. Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Property

Though agreement to sell does not confer title, possessory right of prospective purchaser protected under Sec 53A TP Act. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Will (before death of the testator) or General Power of Attorney (GPA) cannot confer title in immovable property. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Service Law

Judicial review cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence in departmental enquiry proceedings. A Constitutional Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, cannot decide the case as if it is the first stage of the case, as if inquiry is still being conducted and an inquiry report is being prepared. Evidence cannot be re-appreciated at the stage of judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding as if conviction in a criminal trial is being re-examined by the next higher court. Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478

Will

A Will has no force during the life of the executant – a Will comes into effect only after the death of the executant. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Workman

'Uncontested claim of wife regarding husband's income be taken as gospel truth' : Supreme Court increases compensation for deceased workman. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Advocates Act, 1961 - Bar Council of India can prescribe that only graduates from recognized law colleges can enrol as advocates. The rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid. Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 481

Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 (Odisha); Rule 7 - Right of Government to Withhold or Withdraw Pension - In reference to the officer/employee, who stood retired from service, inquiry indeed can be initiated against him/her, provided sanction is obtained from the Government and must be during the period of 4 years before such institution and the Explanation added to the scheme of Rules makes it abundantly clear that proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant/pensioner, as the case may be. Suchismita Mishra v. High Court of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 477

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 4, Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 - Hyderabad Jagir Abolition Regulation, 1358 - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Telangana High Court, upholding the title of successors of Ryot Cultivators over the Paigah lands in Hydernagar, Telangana, who had obtained title to the said lands from their predecessors. The court dismissed the claim of title raised by rival claimants/appellants, including M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd, on the ground that it was a Mathruka property of the late Nawab Khurshid Jah, who was granted a Paigah by the Nizam of Hyderabad. The Apex Court further ruled that no party to a suit for partition, even by way of compromise, can acquire any title to any specific item of property or any particular portion of a specific property, if such a compromise is struck only with a few parties to the suit. Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197(1) – Discharge of Official Duties by Public Servants – Previous sanction requirement – Determination of the existence of a reasonable nexus between an alleged offence by a public servant and their official duties – Held, a public servant would be considered to have acted to purported to have acted in the discharge of their official duty at the time of the commission of an alleged offence if the said government employee could take cover – rightly or wrongly – under any existing policy, and as such, would be granted protection under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appeal allowed. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 Cr.P.C., which envisages a discretionary power, empowers the court holding a trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial. Such power can be exercised by the court qua a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet. Therefore, what is essential for exercise of the power under section 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned. (Para 9) Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 306 (4)(a) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 5(2) - When the Special Court chooses to take cognizance directly under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the question of Approver being examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate as required by Section 306 (4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not arise. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 306 and 307 - Section 306(4) CrPC contemplates that every person accepting a tender of pardon be examined as a witness both in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance and in the subsequent trial. The requirement of Section 306(4)(a) CrPC is relaxed in cases falling under Section 307 CrPC, which empowers the Court to which the case is committed for trial, itself to grant pardon. Where the Special Judge takes cognizance of offence directly, Section 306 of the Code would get by-passed it is Section 307 of the Code which would become applicable. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Companies Act, 1956; Section 81 - The Supreme Court has upheld the largely disproportionate allotment of rights share in favour of one group of shareholders of a private limited company, substantially increasing its shareholding percentage in the company over other group of shareholders. The court held that though Section 81(3) of Companies Act, 1956 expressly exempts a private limited company from the purview of Section 81, which deals with further issue of capital; however, notwithstanding the same, the conduct of the Directors is to be judged on a higher yardstick. The court, however, remarked that the fact that the Directors may also benefit from a decision taken primarily with the intention to promote the interest of the Company, cannot vitiate the decision. Thus, even though the Directors who constituted the said shareholders’ group, benefited and made a gain from the implementation of a decision taken primarily with a view to safeguard the interest of the Company, it cannot by itself render the decision vulnerable to attack. Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel v. Ambika Food Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 490

Competition Act, 2002 - Coal India Ltd. would come under the purview of the Act despite being a Public Sector Undertaking. Coal India Ltd v. Competition Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 484

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 – Previous Sanction – Contended that any act done by a public servant, which constitutes an offence of cheating, cannot be taken to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty – Distinguishing Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1, held, observations contained are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio flowing out of the said case or taken as judicially carving out an exception to a statutory prescription – Also held, no public servant is appointed with a mandate or authority to commit an offence and therefore, if the observations are applied, any act which constitutes an offence under any statute will go out of the purview of an act in the discharge of official duty – Appeal allowed. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Ante-timing of the FIR - Benefit of Doubt - In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused at the place of incident is also not well established, we are constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused. Even if we ignore certain other minor discrepancies in the oral evidence, the delay in conducting the post-mortem, the difference in the name of the weapons of crime, i.e., “tabal” or “palkati” which are more or less similar types of instruments for cutting crops, etc., it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Police Rules, 1934 (Punjab) - For a person in uniformed service, like the police, adverse entry relating to his/her integrity and conduct is to be adjudged by the superior authority(ies) who record and approve such entry. Personnel having such remarks being compulsorily retired as per the statutory provisions. (Para 28) Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Police Rules, 1934 (Punjab) - the Civil Judge was wrong to grant liberty to move for expunction of remarks especially in the absence of any such provisions. (Para 26) Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Police Rules, 1934 (Punjab) - the Rules, originally framed in 1934, contemplated the authorities as “The Inspector-General, a Deputy Inspector-General, and a Superintendent of Police”. The “Inspector-General” of that time [when the service was called Imperial/Indian Police] headed the State Police, but is today known as, in most States and Union Territories, barring a handful, in the hierarchy of the State Police, as the Director-General of Police, an officer drawn from the Indian Police Service, who sits at the apex of the state police machinery. In fact, today the Inspector-General of Police is administratively subordinate to the Director-General of Police and the Additional Director-General of Police. The Rules were also framed at a time when the system of Ranges and Commissionerates had not been established. Indubitably, the Rules, for better or for worse (worse, we hazard) have not kept pace with the times. We do not appreciate why the authorities concerned are unable to update/amend the Rules with at least the correct official description of posts to obviate confusion. (Para 20, 21) Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - A Will or General Power of Attorney (“GPA”) cannot be recognized as title documents or documents conferring right in any immovable property - the non-execution of any document by the GPA holder consequent to it, renders the said GPA useless. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - an Agreement to Sell is neither a document of title nor a deed of transfer of property by sale. Therefore, it does not confer any absolute title over the Property. However, the factors such as entering into an Agreement to Sell, payment of entire sale consideration and being put in possession by the transferor, shows that the de-facto possessory rights based on the part performance of the Agreement to Sell. The possessory right is not liable to be disturbed by the transferer and the transferer’s entry into the Suit Property subsequently was as a licencee and not as the owner of Property. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - In connection with the general power of attorney and the will so executed, the practice, if any, prevalent in any State or the High Court recognizing these documents to be documents of title or documents conferring right in any immovable property is in violation of the statutory law. Any such practice or tradition prevalent would not override the specific provisions of law which require execution of a document of title or transfer and its registration so as to confer right and title in an immovable property of over Rs.100/- in value. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - the objective of the Act is dispensation of social justice - When the wife of the deceased employee deposed his income on oath and the Employer admitted the same, then by no stretch of imagination the Deputy Labour Commissioner could have awarded lower compensation on minimum wage rate - the Supreme Court took an empathetic view and instead of remanding the matter back to High Court for re-consideration, it has itself awarded enhanced compensation to the deceased’s family. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - Unchallenged statement of wife regarding deceased husband’s monthly wage to be accepted as gospel of truth. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923; Section 20 (1) and (2) - The insurer of the offending vehicle having filed the written statement seems to have not cross examined the claimants and their witnesses. Thus, the claim lodged by the claimants seeking for compensation would not partake the character of a “contested claim” as stipulated under the notification issued by the appropriate Government under the W.C. Act. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

NOMINAL INDEX

1. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485
2. Aish Mohammed v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 483
3. Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 481
4. Coal India Ltd v. Competition Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 484
5. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479
6. Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel v. Ambika Food Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 490
7. Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478
8. Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 480
9. Karandeep Singh v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 482
10. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486
11. Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489
12. Station Superintendent v. Surender Bhola, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 487
13. Suchismita Mishra v. High Court of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 477
14. Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 488