Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 762

SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Army

BSF Act - Even if an officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the court has to satisfy that confession is voluntary. Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758 : 2023 INSC 802

Bail

Bail - One cannot apply one bail order to all the other subsequent cases. (Para 8) PACL v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 747 : 2023 INSC 795

Can anticipatory bail be granted to proclaimed offender? only in exceptional & rare cases, holds the Supreme Court. State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : 2023 INSC 784

The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna to take a look into certain irregularities in uploading an order of the High Court. The issue raised 'serious concerns' and directed the High Court Chief Justice to take necessary steps in this regard. Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 738

Cheque

Cheque bounce case can be quashed u/s 482 only if the amount is patently non-recoverable; whether debt time-barred or not is a question of evidence. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2023 INSC 811

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act - If commercial use is by purchasers themselves for earning livelihood by self-employment, they'll be 'consumers'. Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754 : 2023 INSC 807

Contempt of Court

Litigants liable for civil contempt on violating undertaking given on their behalf by advocate to court. Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Criminal Law

'State assisted accused, failed to prosecute fairly': Supreme Court directs Bihar Govt to compensate victims in 1995 double murder case. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 760 : 2023 INSC 738

Judge is not a mere recording machine; must actively search for truth in trial : Supreme Court sends back death penalty matter to HC. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Section 162 CrPC does not prevent a trial court from putting questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Section 323 Cr.P.C. - Power can be invoked even after deposition / chief examination of witness. Archana v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Delay

No litigant should have even an iota of doubt or an impression (rather, a misimpression) that just because of systemic delay or the matter not being taken up by the Courts resulting in efflux of time the cause would be defeated, and the Court would be rendered helpless to ensure justice to the party concerned. It would not be out of place to mention that this Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures. The powers of this Court, if need be, to even restore status quo ante are not in the realm of any doubt. (Para 32) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

Election

As a general rule, the courts do not interfere in election matters. However, this principle is not absolute. It recognized that there are circumstances where executive actions or attempts to disrupt a fair electoral playing field may emerge. In such cases, the Constitutional Courts are not only permitted but also duty-bound to step in and ensure the integrity of the election process. (Para 37) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

Elections to any office / body are required to be free, fair and transparent. Elections lie at the core of democracy. The authority entrusted by law to hold / conduct such elections is to be completely independent of any extraneous influence / consideration. (Para 22) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

The controversy involved in this lis is the non-allocation of the Plough symbol to the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference for its candidates to contest the then-upcoming General Elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil (“LAHDC”). The request for allotment of the Plough symbol by R1 was bonafide, legitimate and just, for the plain reason that in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (which included the present Union Territory of Ladakh), it was a recognized State Party having been allotted the Plough symbol. Upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and the creation of two new Union Territories, namely the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, though the ECI had not notified R1 as a State Party for the Union Territory of Ladakh, it cannot be simpliciter that R1 was not entitled for the allotment of plough symbol to it, in the factual background. There is no conflict with any other stakeholder for the reason that the Plough symbol is neither a symbol exclusively allotted to any National or State Party nor one of the symbols shown in the list of free symbols. Thus, there was and is no impediment in such symbol being granted to R1. (Para 28 & 29) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

The Ladakh Administration had filed the special leave petition challenging the direction passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh to notify the 'plough' symbol for JKNC. It is surprising that the Union Territory of Ladakh not only denied R1 the Plough symbol, but even upon timely intervention by the learned Single Judge, has left no stone unturned not only to resist but also frustrate a cause simply by efflux of time. The Supreme Court set aside the notification issued by the Union Territory of Ladakh on August 5 for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) election in the Kargil region, which was scheduled on September 10. The Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Party (JKNC) is entitled to the 'plough' symbol. The Court imposed a cost of Rupees One Lakh on the Ladakh Administration for filing the petition. The Administration has been directed to issue a fresh election notification within seven days. (Para 44 & 45) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

Evidence

Last Seen Theory can be invoked only if it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt : Supreme Court acquits murder accused. R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751 : 2023 INSC 803

Fair Trial

Free and fair trial is sine-qua-non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the criminal trial is not free and fair, then the confidence of the public in the judicial fairness of a judge and the justice delivery system would be shaken. Denial to fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as to the victim and the society. No trial can be treated as a fair trial unless there is an impartial judge conducting the trial, an honest, able and fair defence counsel and equally honest, able and fair public prosecutor. A fair trial necessarily includes fair and proper opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused and opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence. (Para 64-72) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Insurance

LIC not entitled to levy fee for endorsing transfer or assignment of a policy. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 759 : 2023 INSC 815

Interpretation of Statutes

A statutory provision cannot be declared ultra vires without a specific challenge in the pleadings. (Para 9) Union of India v. Manjurani Routray, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 745 : 2023 INSC 787

Judicial Service

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking 2 years' cooling off period for retired judges' post-retirement appointments. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Juvenile

The Supreme Court releases a man incarcerated for 12 years after finding that he was a juvenile at the time of offence. Makkella Nagaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 757 : 2023 INSC 800

Last Seen Theory

'Last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt - The burden on the accused would kick in, only when the last seen theory is established. (Para 15-17) R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751 : 2023 INSC 803

Lien

‘Lien’ of a government servant only ceases to exist when he/she is appointed on another post ‘substantively’/confirmed or absorbed permanently. Otherwise, his/her lien would continue on the previous post. (Para 17) L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : 2023 INSC 796

Marriage

Child from void / voidable marriage cannot be treated as coparcener by birth in Mitakshara Hindu Undivided Family. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2023 INSC 783

Children of invalid marriages have right in their parents' share in hindu joint family property. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2023 INSC 783

NEET

The Supreme Court granted relief to a candidate who was aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holder by the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Finding the rejection of her application as an OCI candidate to be illegal, the Court directed to be considered in remaining counseling rounds by the AIIMS and other NEET-PG Medical seats. All those who had obtained OCI cards before 04.03.2021 are entitled to similar benefits in the NEET-PG admission process. 04.03.2021 is the date on which the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification holding that OCI candidates cannot compete in seats meant for Indian citizens in college admissions and that they will be considered only in NRI seats. (Para 17) Pallavi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 741 : 2023 INSC 782

Ownership

Mere living in a particular house by itself would not mean that the said house is under ownership of the person living therein in his individual capacity or even that it is within the area of operation of the society. (Para 16) Purushottam Bagh Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. Shobhan Pal Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 762 : 2023 INSC 789

Practice and Procedure

Legislature can't directly overrule judgment, but law can be made to alter the basis of court verdict. NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756

SLP cannot be filed to challenge an order passed by the High Court on the Administrative side. Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

The High Courts cannot refuse to follow its binding judgment on the ground that a reference has been made against it to the larger bench or a review is pending against it. (Para 35) Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749 : 2023 INSC 804

Preventive Detention

Treating 12 months as the standard duration of detention was indicative of a mechanical approach by the authorities. The purpose to be served by imposing maximum period of detention must be specified or the authorities could be accused of unreasonableness and unfairness. (Para 60 & 70) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

When ordinary provisions of criminal law would have sufficed to deal with the detenu, there was no reason for the state to invoke the provisions of the preventive detention act, being an extraordinary statute. (Para 51) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Detention order must be precise and simple, laying down grounds for detention. (Para 49) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Preventive detention laws are an 'exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations' and must not be used as a tool for enforcing 'law and order'. (Para 40) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Differentiation between maintenance of 'public order' and offences that create a "law and order" situation - For an act to qualify as a disturbance to ‘public order’, the activity must impact the general public and evoked feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity. “Stray acts affecting private individuals and the repetition of similar such acts would not tend to affect the even flow of public life. (Para 39) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Preventive Detention - Factors to be considered by courts to decide legality – Explained. (Para 25) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Petition seeking a ‘cooling off’ period of two years before any retired judge of a constitutional court can accept a post-retirement appointment. Held, the issue whether a retired Judge should accept any office or not has to be left to the conscience of the Judge concerned, or any law in this regard brought into force but cannot form a subject matter of directions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Service Law

Probation - Employee found unsuitable for job can be dismissed without notice during the probationary period. (Para 19) State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761 : 2023 INSC 798

Distinction between simpliciter termination and punitive termination - This distinction is crucial since if the order of termination is punitive or stigmatic in nature, it becomes mandatory to conduct an inquiry following the procedure and an opportunity to be heard has to be given. Failure to do so may make such termination/discharge illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. If an enquiry or assessment is conducted with the aim of uncovering any misconduct by an employee and results in their termination, it is considered punitive in nature. Whereas, if it is focused on evaluating an employee's suitability for a specific job, the termination is considered termination simpliciter and not punitive. (Para 13) State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761 : 2023 INSC 798

Succession

Mitakshara Hindu Property Succession - Tried and tested many times over, the issue of succession to Mitakshara coparcenary property continues to raise its head time and again like an undying Hydra of Lerna. (Para 1) Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : 2023 INSC 785

Hindu Succession Act - To decide shares of heirs, first step is to ascertain share of deceased in coparcenary property on date of death. Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : 2023 INSC 785

Workman

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Commission can be entertained only if there is a substantial question of law. Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : 2023 INSC 790

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Even if the Officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the Court has to satisfy that the confession is voluntary. (Para 38) Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758 : 2023 INSC 802

Civil Service Rules (Karnataka); Rule 20 Note 4 - As per the language of the said Rule, the lien of a government servant on the previous post stands protected till his or her continuation on probation period on the new post. The intention of the said rule is clear, viz., to protect the past service of the government servant in cases where the government servant is not confirmed or absorbed substantively on the new post on account of his/her failure to satisfactorily complete the probation period or for any other reason. (Para 19) L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : 2023 INSC 796

Civil Service Rules (Karnataka); Rule 252(b) - 'Relieving order' cannot be treated as resignation. The said Rule makes it clear that if another appointment is taken up by a government servant with proper permission, then it cannot be termed as resignation of public service. (Para 20) L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : 2023 INSC 796

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - There is nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness. The Judge may do this or he may make over the recorded statement to the lawyer for the accused so that he may use it for this purpose - The proviso would prevent the Court from using statements made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation for any other purpose than that mentioned in the proviso but it does not in any other way affect the power that lies in the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu. (Para 45-48) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 323 - High Court directed the Magistrate to undertake the exercise of committal in pursuant to a decision to be taken as to whether a charge can be added under Section 307 IPC only after the conclusion of the entire evidence of prosecution witness - It is not mandatory for the Magistrate to wait for the completion of the entire evidence of the prosecution witness, which is inclusive of cross-examination - Section 323 Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to the Court to exercise its power at any stage of the proceeding before signing judgment - The power under Section 323 Cr.P.C. may be invoked by the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding prior to signing of the Judgment - The said power may be invoked even after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness. The key requirement for the invocation of the power under the Section 323 is that the learned Magistrate concerned must feel that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions. Archana v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 366 - 368 - In a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court is under an obligation to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 367 and 368 resply of the CrPC. Under these Sections the High Court must not only see whether the order passed by the Sessions Court is correct but it is under an obligation to examine the entire evidence for itself, apart from and independently of the Sessions Court's appraisal and assessment of that evidence - The Court must examine the appeal record for itself, arrive at a view whether a further enquiry or taking of additional evidence is desirable or not, and then come to its own conclusion on the entire material on record whether conviction of the condemned prisoner is justified and the sentence of death should be confirmed - In this case, the court found serious lapses on the part of the defence in not proving major contradictions in the form of material omissions surfacing from the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses - remit the matter back to the High Court for deciding the death reference. (Para 2, 57-60) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 386 - An appellate court, in the case of an acquittal, must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. When two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be leaned on. (Para 17-18) R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751 : 2023 INSC 803

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - Failure to subject the accused to medical examination by a medical practitioner - A serious flaw- Medical examination of an accused assumes great importance in cases where the victim of rape is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence. (Para 24-29) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 82 and 438 - Anticipatory bail can be granted to a proclaimed offender only in an exceptional and rare case. (Para 16) State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : 2023 INSC 784

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - No Special Leave Petition can be filed against the administrative order - Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial. Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (4) - Preventive detention law cannot authorise the detention of a person beyond 3 (three) months unless an Advisory Board finds sufficient cause for such detention. (Para 59) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d) - ‘consumer’ - ‘commercial purpose’ - A person buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity, will not be a ‘consumer’ entitled to protection of the Act - If the dominant purpose of purchasing the goods or services is for a profit motive and the said fact is evident from the record, such purchaser would not fall under the ambit of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. However, the Explanation clarifies that even purchases in certain situations for ‘commercial purposes’ would not take within its sweep the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’. In other words, if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’. Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754 : 2023 INSC 807

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Although the transfer of the suit property pendente lite may not be termed as void ab initio yet when the court is looking into such transfers in contempt proceedings the court can definitely declare such transactions to be void in order to maintain the majesty of law. Apart from punishing the contemnor, for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. This may include issue of directions either for reversal of the transactions by declaring such transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to ensure that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him. (Para 116 (iii)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The apology tendered should not be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the same. The apology may be unconditional, unqualified and bona fide, still if the conduct is serious, which has caused damage to the dignity of the institution, the same should not be accepted. There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness. (Para 116 (v)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The beneficiaries of any contumacious transaction have no right or locus to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers of the property for value without notice and therefore, are necessary parties. Contempt is between the court and the contemnor and no third party can involve itself into the same. (Para 116 (iv)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - There exists a distinction between an undertaking given to a party to the lis and the undertaking given to a court. The undertaking given to a court attracts the provisions of the Act 1971 whereas an undertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the Act 1971. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the undertaking was given to the High Court and the breach or disobedience would definitely attract the provisions of the Act 1971. (Para 116 (ii)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 2 (b) - Assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel / advocate on behalf of his client to the court; the wilful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to “civil contempt”. (Para 116 (i)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : 2023 INSC 805

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Social welfare legislation must be given a beneficial construction – Matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen awareness of the scope and intent of the Act. (Para 30) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : 2023 INSC 790

Employees Compensation Act, 1923; Section 30 - An appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered – Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts – The other ground making the order under challenge, amenable to interference when the scope of jurisdiction is circumscribed by it being exercised only in cases of “substantial question of law”, is perversity in the findings. (Para 17- 21) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : 2023 INSC 790

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 16 - Rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property – Held, a child born from a void or voidable marriage is entitled to the parents share in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) governed by Mitakshara law; however, such a child cannot be treated as a coparcener by birth in the HUF. The very concept of a coparcener postulates the acquisition of an interest by birth. If a person born from a void or voidable marriage to whom legitimacy is conferred by sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 were to have an interest by birth in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law, this would certainly affect the rights of others apart from the parents of the child. When an individual falls within the protective ambit of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 16, they would be entitled to rights in or to the absolute property of the parents and no other person. (Para 51) Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2023 INSC 783

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 16 - Rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property – Children born out of void/voidable marriages are entitled to inherit a share in the property of their deceased parents which would have been allotted to them on a notional partition of the Hindu coparcenary property. However, such children are not entitled to the properties of any coparcener other than their parents. This ruling is applicable only to Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. (Para 55) Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2023 INSC 783

Hindu Succession Act, 1955; Section 6 - In order to ascertain the shares of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property and Explanation 1 to Section 6 provides a fictional expedient, namely, that his share is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death - Once that assumption has been made for the purpose of ascertaining the share of the deceased, one cannot go back on the assumption and ascertain the shares of the heirs without reference to it, and all the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the shares of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the life-time of the deceased. In effect, the heir will get his or her share in the interest which the deceased had in the coparcenary property at the time of his death, in addition to the share which he or she received or must be deemed to have received in the notional partition. (Para 11-12) Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : 2023 INSC 785

Insurance Act, 1938; Section 38 - Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is not entitled to levy a service charge or fee for endorsing the assignment or transfer of a policy. (Para 9) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 759 : 2023 INSC 815

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; Section 16 r/w 15(1)(g) - If the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.05.1989, he was 16 years 7 months old as on the date of the crime, i.e., 21.12.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of commission of the offence. The maximum period for which the petitioner could have been in custody is three years. However, as the plea of juvenility was raised for the first time in the present writ petition before us, the process of criminal law, which commenced in 2005, led to the petitioner being convicted and sentence for life imprisonment concurrently by the Trial Court, the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment. Having accepted the report of the II Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner can no longer be incarcerated. (Para 6 – 8) Makkella Nagaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 757 : 2023 INSC 800

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 139 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - If the question as to whether the debt or liability being barred by limitation was an issue to be considered in such proceedings, the same is to be decided based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonoured and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will arise. In such cases, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will be justified in interfering but not otherwise. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2023 INSC 811

Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Himachal Pradesh); Sections 3(1) and 3 (1-A) - Amendment and Validation Act, 1997 - It is permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in an earlier legislation, as pointed out by a constitutional court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. The defect can be removed both prospectively and retrospectively by a legislative process and previous actions can also be validated. However, where a legislature merely seeks to validate the acts carried out under a previous legislation which has been struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would also be ultra-vires. NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act 1986; Section 3(2) - Drastic provisions of the Act are not to be invoked at the drop of a hat. (Para 41) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788