Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821

SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Arbitration

The Supreme Court explains scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards. Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Civil Law

In the second appeal, the High Court must frame a substantial question of law at the admission stage itself ordinarily. Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : 2023 INSC 846

Order V Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code requires service of summons with plaint. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. National Building Construction India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800

Corruption

PC Act - Once it is proved that a public servant received gratification beyond legal remuneration, statutory presumption operates. P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Criminal Law

Criminal Trial - the death of the complainant or nonavailability of the complainant at the time of trial could be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, nor could it be said to be a ground to acquit the accused. It is always open for the prosecution to prove the contents of the complaint and other facts in issue by leading other oral or documentary evidence, in case of death of or nonavailability of the complainant. (Para 9) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Section 313 CrPC - Failure to put incrimination circumstances to the accused will not vitiate trial if no prejudice is caused. Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Supreme Court acquits two death row convicts, perplexed at trial court & hc awarding capital punishment despite loopholes in evidence. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Criminal Investigation - It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country. (Para 38) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Criminal Justice System - The manner in which police investigations are conducted is of critical importance to the functioning of the Criminal Justice System. Not only serious miscarriage of justice will result if the collection of evidence is vitiated by error or malpractice, but successful prosecution of the guilty depends on a thorough and careful search for truth and collection of evidence which is both admissible and probative. (Referred: 2003, the Report of Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath’s ‘Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Para 37) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Criminal Jurisprudence - Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those produced by the prosecution and different yardsticks cannot be prescribed for prosecution witnesses as compared to defence witnesses. (Para 23) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Education

The Supreme Court refuses to interfere with the Lakshadweep administration’s decision to drop meat from the school mid-day meal menu. Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 803

Election

Aadhaar number not mandatory for electoral rolls, will make changes in forms to enrol new voters: ECI Tells Supreme Court. G. Niranjan v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 805

Enforcement

Enforcement officer competent to file complaint under repealed provisions of FERA during sunset period of 2 years after enforcement of FEMA. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 820 : 2023 INSC 845

Equity and Law

Equity cannot supplant the law. Equity has to follow law, if the law is clear and unambiguous. (Para 104) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Evidence Law

Panchnama inadmissible in court where witnesses merely acted as attestors and did not disclose how objects were discovered. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

S. 27 Evidence Act - Discovery can't be proved against a person if he wasn't accused of any offence & wasn't in custody of police at the time of confession. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Circumstantial Evidence - In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of unbroken events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and none other. (Para 14) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Certified copy can be produced to prove original sale deed in trial. Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835

Eyewitness account can't be discarded merely because of inconsistencies with medical evidence. Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Minor Discrepancies - An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate blow by blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay. Just because there were more injuries than the ones narrated by the eyewitness cannot negate the prosecution version. Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor’s evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence. (Para 7 & 9) Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Firecracker

The Supreme Court rejected the firecracker makers' plea to use barium and joined crackers – Held, cannot allow barium nitrate in firecrackers merely because the new formulation is 30% less polluting. (Para 12) Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 816 : 2023 INSC 840

Judicial Service

Judge aspirants get relief; Supreme Court sets aside BPSC's rejection of candidates for not producing original certificates. Sweety Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 818 : 2023 INSC 853

Mid­day Meal Scheme

It is not within the Court’s domain to decide as to what would be the choice of food for the children of a particular region for Mid­day Meal Scheme. There is no scope of guess work by the law Courts on that count and the Court will have to accept the administrative decision in that regard unless some outstanding arbitrariness is pointed out. (Para 8) Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 803

Narcotic Drugs

NDPS Act - Confession to NCB officials not admissible in evidence; possession must be established to draw presumption under S. 54. Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

SARFAESI Act

Borrower's right to redeem mortgage extinguishes once bank publishes auction notice for secured asset. Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

SARFAESI Act no license for bank officers to act against law. Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Service Law

If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process. (Para 18) Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812 : 2023 INSC 842

An applicant does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed just because he/she has qualified in the selection process. (Para 17) Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812 : 2023 INSC 842

A candidate accused of a heinous offense cannot claim the right to appointment when the acquittal was on the 'benefit of doubt'. (Para 19) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

Appointment in Law Enforcement Agency - The yardstick to be applied in cases where the appointment sought relates to a Law Enforcement Agency, ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy. One must be mindful of the fact that once appointed to such a post, a responsibility would be cast on the respondent of maintaining law and order in the society, enforcing the law, dealing with arms and ammunitions, apprehending suspected criminals and protecting the life and property of the public at large. Therefore, the standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a Law Enforcement Agency must always be higher and more rigourous for the simple reason that possession of a higher moral conduct is one of the basic requirements for appointment to a post as sensitive as that in the police service. (Para 18) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

Appointment - An employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the disclosure made by a candidate. While doing so, the employer must act with prudence, keep in mind the nature of the post and the duties required to be discharged. Higher the post, more stringent ought to be the standards to be applied. Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, the employer is well within its right to examine the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the offence and verify whether the acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended on technical reasons. If the employer arrives at a conclusion that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed or continued in service. (Para 10) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

Appointment - Acquittal in the criminal case - Even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case, on perusing the facts of the said case and the observations made in the judgement, quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal. It is evident from the facts narrated that after the chargesheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the complainant and filed an application under Section 320 of the CrPC, based on which the offence under Section 341 IPC was compounded. As for the remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent’s plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits. (Para 16 & 17) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

Appointment - Acquittal in the criminal case - mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors 2 relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken by the State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgement passed by the Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. (Para 19) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837

No pension for past service if a central govt employee resigns to join another govt post without permission. Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807

Service Law - The appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is not tenable. It observed that the appellant was appointed as a substitute teacher in the pay scale of a primary teacher. In fact, when he filed the first round of proceedings, no plea was raised that he worked as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section. Even before the Tribunal, the argument was only about regularization. Before this Court too, no claim for regularization as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section was made. The Screening Committee having considered him, pursuant to the orders of this Court, had thought it fit to absorb him only as a primary teacher; the Screening Committee itself was pursuant to the orders of this Court; the records of his appointment as a substitute teacher admittedly show that he was only appointed as a substitute primary teacher; it is on the completion of three months as substitute primary teacher that he acquired temporary status and on absorption now he became entitled to certain benefits. (Para 29 - 32) Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806

Working for a long period on a contractual basis does not create a vested right to regularization. Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801

Res Judicata

No party should be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause: supreme court on 'constructive res judicata'. Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806

Law on Constructive Res Judicata - The doctrine itself is based on public policy flowing from the age-old legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that in the interest of the State there should be an end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause. (Para 35) Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806

Tax

Dividend income from an Indian entity's establishment in Oman having ‘permanent establishment’ status under DTAA not taxable in india. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : 2023 INSC 834

Will

A Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property. It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator’s property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and carries with it an element of sanctity. It speaks from the death of the testator. Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the possibility of any manipulation. (Para 9) Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : 2023 INSC 847

Apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances. (Para 11) Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : 2023 INSC 847

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Award in question is patently illegal since it lacks reasoning in arriving at conclusions and calculation of amounts awarded. The High Court’s order setting aside the award has been upheld. Appeal has been dismissed. (Para 45-46) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Concept of justice and morality - When an Award shocks the conscience of the court, for example where the claimant has restricted his claim but the arbitral tribunal has awarded a higher amount without any reasonable ground of justification, that would be against justice. However, morality would cover illegal and unenforceable agreements but interference would be only if warranted if something shocks the court’s conscience. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 28(3) - Scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards - While setting aside an arbitral award for being violative of Section 28(3) of the Act, it must be considered that the Arbitrator is empowered to interpret the contract terms reasonably. Arbitrator’s interpretation cannot be a ground for setting aside an award, since the construction of contract’s terms is finally for the arbitrator to decide. Under Section 28(3), award can only be set aside if the arbitrator interprets it in manner as no fair-minded reasonable person would do. Section 28(3) of the Act mandatorily obligates the arbitral tribunal to decide cases as per terms of the contract and by considering the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction. (Para 41-43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 28(3) - The meaning of patent illegality was interpreted to mean, (a) contravention of substantive law of India which goes to the root of matter and is not be trivial in nature; (b) when Arbitrator gives no reason in award in contravention with Section 31(3) of the Arbitration Act; and (c) contravention of Section 28(3) of Arbitration Act which mandatorily obligates the arbitral tribunal to decide cases as per terms of the contract and by considering the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards - Arbitral Tribunal is ultimate master of quality and quantity of evidence. An Award cannot be regarded invalid merely for being passed upon little or no evidence. It is not imperative for every Arbitrator to be trained in law like a Judge. Even if decisions are passed over equity, being just and fair, such decisions cannot be set aside alleging arbitrariness. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850

CCS Pension Rules; Rule 26 (2) - Unauthorized resignation from government service for another government job will result in the forfeiture of past service and pension benefits. (Para 17) Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807

Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955 (Bihar) - Rejection of candidates for not producing original certificates – Held, if a person possesses eligibility before the date of actual selection, he cannot be denied benefit because its proof is produced later. In the present case, the proof is available and true photocopies were on record. The appellants’ candidature could not have been rejected merely because the original was not produced before the Commission at the time of interview in particular when such requirement was not mandatory, in view of the manner in which the Rules are couched. (Para 18 & 19) Sweety Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 818 : 2023 INSC 853

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order V Rule 2 - Service contemplated in terms of Order V Rule 2 of the Code would imply service of summons along with the copy of the plaint. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. National Building Construction India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in exceptional circumstances. Post such framing of questions the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on such questions, i.e., after giving them adequate time to meet and address them. It is only after such hearing subsequent to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided. (Para 27.1) Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : 2023 INSC 846

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - In ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with finding of fact, however, if it does find any compelling reason to do so as regard in law, it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought to be upturned. In other words, when overturning findings of fact, the Court will be required to call for the records of the Trial Court or if placed on record, peruse the same and only then question the veracity of the conclusions drawn by the Court below. (Para 27.2) Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : 2023 INSC 846

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Second appeal can be entertained by the High Court only if the case involves a ‘substantial question of law’. (Para 12 – 14) Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 100 (4) - Plea of unreliability of the testimony of the independent witness - It is a general provision relating to search and applies to a closed place, as for example, a residence, office, shop, a built-up premises etc, where a search is required to be conducted by the investigation. It is in this context that sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. provides that to maintain the purity of the process, before undertaking a search, a couple of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality where the place to be searched is located, be joined as witnesses to the search. (Para 24 – 25) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - Witnesses to the panchnamas and the seizures acted as mere attestors to the documents and did not disclose in their own words as to how these objects were discovered, i.e., at whose instance and how. Ergo, no lawful validity attaches to these proceedings recorded by the police in the context of collection of all this evidence. (Para 32) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - To enable an accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence must be put to him. But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused. Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in the Apex Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused. (Para 44) Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Evidence Act 1872; Sections 65, 74, 77 and 79 - Registration Act, 1908; Section 57 (5) - Certified copy of an original sale deed is admissible in evidence in a trial. (Para 29) Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - For a confession made to the police to be admissible, two essential conditions must be met: the individual must be 'accused of any offence,' and they must be in 'police custody' at the time the confession is made. (Para 22) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; Sections 56, 57, 61 - Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; Sections 49 (1), (3), (4) - Enforcement Officer appointed and authorised under the repealed provisions of the FERA, will continue to have the authority and competence to file a complaint for the offences punishable under the Act before the expiry of the sunset period of 2 years provided under Section 49(3) of the FEMA. (Para 11) First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 820 : 2023 INSC 845

Income Tax Act, 1961 - If an Indian Entity’s Establishment is operating in Oman and has a ‘Permanent Establishment’ (PE) status under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), then the dividend income received by the Indian Entity from such Establishment would not be taxable under Indian Taxation laws. (Para 16 - 18) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : 2023 INSC 834

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 53 - Any confessional statement made by an accused to an officer invested with the powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, is barred for the reason that such officers are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a statement made by an accused and recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 10) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 54 - For attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution must first establish possession of contraband by the accused, only then will the burden shift to the accused to prove his innocence. The possession of the contraband must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. (Para 16) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302/34 or 307/34 - To fasten liability with the aid of Section 34 IPC what must necessarily be proved is a common intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime, only if it is in furtherance of the common intention of all. Common intention pre-supposes a prior concert, though pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary as common intention to bring about a particular result may develop on the spot. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted. (Para 29) Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A r/w. 120B, 302 and 201 - A young boy in the first flush of youth was cruelly done to death and the wrongdoers necessarily had to be brought to book for the injustice done to him and his family. However, the manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Para 38) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A r/w. 120B, 302 and 201 - It is indeed perplexing that, despite the innumerable weak links and loopholes in the prosecution’s case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not only inclined to accept the same at face value but went to the extent of imposing and sustaining capital punishment. No valid and acceptable reasons were put forth as to why this case qualified as the ‘rarest of rare cases’, warranting such drastic punishment. Per contra, held, that the yawning infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case warrant acquittal of the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. The degree of proof required to hold them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of circumstantial evidence, is clearly not established. (Para 39) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) - In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned witnesses, who had duly supported the case of prosecution. Both the courts below have recorded the findings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused and also the recovery of tainted currency from the accused. Therefore, the burden had shifted on the accused to dispel the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the said Act, and prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward for the performance of his public duty, which the accused had failed to dispel. The explanation offered by the accused did not tally with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The High Court had also recorded that the defence taken by the accused that the acceptance of tainted currency by him was towards the Audit fees of the Society was not proved by him in as much as there was nothing on record to show that the amount paid by the complainant to the accused was out of the funds of the Society. Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on record threadbare in the right perspective and have found the accused guilty for the offence. (Para 12 - 14) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 and 20 - Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage - Once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under Section 20 that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly. No doubt, such presumption is rebuttable. (Para 11) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - More than a decade back, the Apex Court had expressed serious concern despite its repeated pronouncements in regard to the High Courts ignoring the availability of statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even after, the decision in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, it appears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act. (Para 96) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules 2022; Rule 26B - Submission of the Adhar number is not mandatory for electoral rolls. The Election Commission of India has given an undertaking to the Supreme Court that it will issue "appropriate clarificatory changes" in Forms 6 and 6B (for Registration in E-Roll) which required details of Aadhaar number for the purpose of electoral roll authentication for new voters. (Para 2) G. Niranjan v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 805

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Once the borrower fails to tender the entire amount of dues with all cost & charges to the secured creditor before the publication of auction notice, his right of redemption of mortgage shall stand extinguished / waived on the date of publication of the auction notice in the newspaper in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002. (Para 88) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 8 - Sanctity of Public Auction - It is the duty of the courts to zealously protect the sanctity of any auction conducted. The courts ought to be loath in interfering with auctions, otherwise it would frustrate the very object and purpose behind auctions and deter public confidence and participation in the same. Any other interpretation of the amended Section 13(8) will lead to a situation where multiple redemption offers would be encouraged by a mischievous borrower, the members of the public would be dissuaded and discouraged from in participating in the auction process and the overall sanctity of the auction process would be frustrated thereby defeating the very purpose of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, it is in the larger public interest to maintain the sanctity of the auction process under the SARFAESI Act. (Para 86 - 87) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI matters - High Courts should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 92 – 96) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have applied equitable considerations to overreach the outcome contemplated by the statutory auction process prescribed under the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (v)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9(1) - Borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the SARFAESI Act will get extinguished once the bank publishes an auction notice for the sale of the secured asset. (Para 105 (iii)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (i)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - The two decisions of the Telangana High Court in the case of Concern Readymix v. Authorised Officer, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 783 and Amme Srisailam v. Union Bank of India do not lay down the correct position of law. In the same way, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Pal Alloys and Metal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 2733 also does not lay down the correction position of law. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in n Sri. Sai Annadhatha Polymers v. Canara Bank, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 178 and the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta v. State Bank of India, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 328 lay down the correct position of law while interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (vi) & (vii) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (2) – Conduct of the Bank - Bank is duty bound to follow the provisions of the law as any other litigant. the authorised officer and the Bank cannot act in a manner so as to keep the sword hanging on the neck of the auction purchaser. The law treats everyone equally and that includes the Bank and its officers. The said enactments were enacted for speedy recovery and for benefitting the public at large and does not give any license to the Bank officers to act de hors the scheme of the law or the binding verdicts. (Para 100) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - The Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 could not have withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower. (Para 105 (iv)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - The confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale of the immovable property in form given in appendix (V) to the Rules i.e., in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI. (Para 105 (ii)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838

Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 and 68 - Principles to prove validity and execution of will – explained. (Para 10) Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : 2023 INSC 847

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 803
2. Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835
3. Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 816 : 2023 INSC 840
4. Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852
5. Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817 : 2023 INSC 850
6. Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : 2023 INSC 838
7. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 820 : 2023 INSC 845
8. G. Niranjan v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 805
9. Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801
10. Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : 2023 INSC 847
11. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. National Building Construction India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800
12. P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844
13. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802
14. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839
15. Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804
16. Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806
17. State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : 2023 INSC 837
18. Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812 : 2023 INSC 842
19. Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840
20. Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : 2023 INSC 846
21. Sweety Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 818 : 2023 INSC 853
22. Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807