SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Advocate

The Supreme Court vacated a stay order in a 16-year-old criminal appeal as it pulled up the appellant-lawyer for seeking repeated adjournments. Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 608

Litigants should not be made to suffer because of the advocate's fault in withdrawing a complaint by mistake. Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Cheque

Cheque Dishonour - Concurrent sentencing rule only when cases arise out of a single transaction. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Contempt of Court

Supreme Court imposes cost on State of U.P. for delay in complying with direction for premature release of 4 convicts. Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act - HC cannot reverse special court findings on validity of sanction unless it finds that failure of justice had occurred. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Criminal Law

'Trivial' : Supreme Court quashes 2014 criminal case over petty office altercation. Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : 2023 INSC 668

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to a woman for assaulting a government official during a laborer's protest 30 years ago. Razia Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605 : 2023 INSC 667

Judge also has a public duty to see that the guilty man does not escape : the supreme court upholds the conviction of a man for killing wife. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. This Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. - Magistrate has to examine witnesses named in the complaint before dismissing the complaint u/Sec 203 Cr.P.C. Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2023 INSC 670

Defamation

Allegations in complaint made in good faith to lawful authority cannot attract offence of defamation. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2023 INSC 675

Election

Supreme Court stays conviction of congress leader Rahul Gandhi in 'modi-thieves' defamation case which disqualified him as MP. Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Environment

Registration of all BS VI compliant diesel vehicles is allowed to be done in NCT Delhi, irrespective of their requirement for the g-20 summit. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Whether ESI Act excludes NGT jurisdiction? Supreme Court leaves question of law open while affirming NGT award on gas leak compensation. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593

ESI

Pathological labs in Kerala covered under ESI Act from 2007 & not 2002 : Supreme Court dismisses ESIC appeal. E.S.I. Corporation v. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence - Cases are frequently coming before the Courts where the husbands, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, have gone to the extent of killing the wife. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence - No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member - If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Newspaper reports only hearsay evidence, extra-judicial confession has no greater credibility because newspapers reported. Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594

IBC

NCLAT can 'recall' its judgment, can't 'review' them: Supreme Court affirms NCLAT ruling. Union Bank of India v. Financial Creditors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Insurance

'Breach of condition must be fundamental to deny insurance claim altogether': Supreme Court directs insurer to award 75% claim in vehicle theft case. Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Lawyer's Fault

Complaint was withdrawn by the advocate of the complainant on the pretext of the case being prolonged by the advocate of the Insurance Company, without having express instructions for withdrawal of the said complaint. However, for the fault of the advocate, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. Finally, the dismissal of the complaint was made by the National Commission under the wrong pretext that the earlier complaint had challenged the order of repudiation. Thus, the complaint cannot be thrown out on the threshold of Order XXIII Rule (1)(4) CPC and in the peculiar facts, it requires consideration on merits. (Para 8) Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Legitimate Expectation

Legitimate expectation is a weak and sober right as ordained by a statute. When the Government decides to introduce fair play by way of auction facilitating all eligible persons to contest on equal terms, certainly one cannot contend that he is entitled for a lease merely on the basis of a pending application. The right being not legal, apart from being non-existent, it can certainly not be enforceable. (Para 19 - 20) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Mines and Minerals

No fundamental right in mining. (Para 18) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Pending application for mining lease doesn't create any vested right : Supreme Court upholds Rajasthan Rule introducing auction. State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Vested Right - It is far too settled that there is no right vested over an application made which is pending seeking lease of a government land or over the minerals beneath the soil in any type of land over which the Government has a vested right and regulatory control. In other words, a mere filing of an application ipso facto does not create any right. The power of the Government to amend, being an independent one, pending applications do not come in the way. For a right to be vested there has to be a statutory recognition. Such a right has to accrue and any decision will have to create the resultant injury. When a decision is taken by a competent authority in public interest by evolving a better process such as auction, a right, if any, to an applicant seeking lease over a government land evaporates on its own. An applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Money Laundering

Unitech Case : Supreme Court rejects ED's challenge to bail granted to Preeti Chandra in money laundering case. Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Motor Vehicle

Motor accident claims need not be filed before the MACT of the area where the accident occurred. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Murder Trial

'Sudden provocation as Rs. 500 for daughter not given' : Supreme Court modifies murder conviction of wife who killed husband. Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : 2023 INSC 662

Property Law

Difference between the term’s ‘acquisition’ and ‘resumption’ - While both terms indicate deprivation of a right, there exists a significant distinction in their actual legal connotation. Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of the State to deprive an individual’s enjoyment of a pre­existing right in a property in furtherance of its policy whereas resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which was granted by it in the first place. The term ‘resumption’ must not therefore be conflated with the term ‘acquisition’ as employed within the meaning of Article 300­A of the Constitution so as to create a right to compensation. (Para 73) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Rape

"No evidence" : Supreme Court acquits two men accused in 26 year old rape case. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : 2023 INSC 666

Review

Applications filed for ‘clarification/addition’ while evading the recourse of review, should be discouraged. Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : 2023 INSC 671

Res Judicata

Only fundamental determinations of the Court are hit by res judicata in subsequent proceedings. If the Court makes any incidental, supplemental or non-essential observations, which are not fundamental but ‘collateral’ to the final determination, then those ‘collateral determinations’ would not be hit by res judicata. (Para 43) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Test to distinguish between ‘fundamental determination’ and ‘collateral determination’ - The test is to see whether the concerned determination is so vital to the decision, that without it the decision cannot stand independently. (Para 43) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

The affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe - The claim by a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits etc.- Though the Affinity Test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence, it should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim - If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the perConstitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or her claim. Priya Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 591 : 2023 INSC 663

Social Media

'Substantial progress made to prevent circulation of child porn, rape videos on social media': Supreme Court closes PIL. In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Theft of Vehicle

Any violation of the condition of the insurance policy should be in the nature of a fundamental breach to deny the claimant insurance coverage. (Para 14) Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. (Para 9, 10) Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Insurer had repudiated the claim by saying that the driver had left the vehicle unattended in the public road with the key on the ignition. The time gap between the driver alighting from the vehicle and noticing the theft, is very short. It cannot be said, in such circumstances, that leaving the key of the vehicle in the ignition was an open invitation to steal the vehicle. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the Claimant consented or connived in the removal of the vehicle. Even if there was some carelessness, it was not a fundamental breach of condition for totally denying the insurance claim altogether. Therefore, a claim up to 75% must be awarded on a nonstandard basis. (Para 15 - 18) Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : 2023 INSC 659

Videos of Sexual Violence

The Supreme Court closed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for controlling indiscriminate circulation of child pornography and videos of gang rape and rape through WhatsApp and other social media after the expert committee constituted by the Court for the matter, submitted its report on how it proposes to address the issue. The expert committee had reached a consensus on the larger issue and had made substantial progress in addressing it. Held that, what was left to be monitored were technical aspects of implementation, which could be done by the Union. (Para 7 – 11) In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - The parties have been litigating since the year 1994. During these decades, the Subject Land has acquired enormous value. Some of the documents on record do indicate that land mafia has already ousted the gullible Assignees and now have vulture’s eyes on the land. Additionally, ‘Greyhounds Commando Force’, a security agency of paramount national importance, currently occupies the Subject Land in public interest. The Subject Land in its entirety is declared to have vested in the State Government. On further allotment, its ownership and possessory rights, free from all encumbrances, stand transferred in favour of the Greyhounds Commando Force. No Civil Court or High Court shall entertain any claim whatsoever on behalf of any Assignee, their legal representative, GPA holder or any other claimant under any Agreement to sell or other instruments, claiming direct or indirect interests in the Subject Land. There shall be a final quietus of title and possessory dispute over the Subject Land in favour of the Respondent­State and/or the agency to whom the said land has been allotted. (Para 76) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Andhra Pradesh) - Serious allegations prevail against the Appellants for being involved with the land mafia to usurp the Subject Land for private interests which was the precise reason for the Government to introduce legislation in the nature of the 1977 Act. Held, the Appellants are not entitled to any compensation under the existing constitutional framework. The proceedings emanating out of the second show cause notice (SCN) were valid; the Subject Land was non-alienable and hence was subject to the provisions of the 1977 Act. The Appellants had transferred the Subject Land in contravention to the provisions of 1977 Act and therefore, the resultant resumption order dated 27.01.2007 is valid. The Appellants are also not entitled to any compensation on account of the requisition of the assigned land. (Para 74 & 75) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - Transfer Petition - Rejected petitioner's contention that since all his witnesses are from Siliguri (West Bengal), language could be a barrier - In a country as diverse as India, it is no doubt true that people speak different languages. There are at least 22 (twenty-two) official languages. However, Hindi being the national language, it is expected of the witnesses who would be produced by the petitioner before the MACT, Fatehgarh, U.P. to communicate and convey their version in Hindi. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, it is the claimants who would be seriously prejudiced not being in a position to communicate and convey their version in Bengali. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202(1), 203 - After taking recourse to Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., before dismissing a complaint by taking recourse to Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. (Para 5) Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2023 INSC 670

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227, 239 - An interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would also not be maintainable. (Para 15) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Supreme Court imposes cost on State of Uttar Pradesh for delay in complying with direction for premature release of 4 convicts. Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Pathological labs in Kerala covered under ESI Act from 2007 and not from 2002, by virtue of a Government Notification issued on 06.09.2007 - If the pathological laboratories were already covered under the Act there was no occasion to issue such a notification - Even as per the understanding of the Corporation, pathological laboratories were not covered under the Act prior to that date – Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the ESI Corporation. (Para 13-15) E.S.I. Corporation v. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - When an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete - Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show, that shortly before the commission of the crime they were seen together or the offence took place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not dispute his presence at home at the relevant time and does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 78 and 81 - Newspaper reports only hearsay evidence and it can only be treated as secondary evidence - Extrajudicial confession cannot be given greater credibility only because it is published in a newspaper and is available to the public at large. (Para 15) Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Rules, 2016 - The Supreme Court has upheld the ruling of NCLAT fivemember bench, wherein it was held that NCLAT is empowered to recall its judgment but not to review them. The Supreme Court has affirmed the NCLAT’s ruling and dismissed an appeal filed against the order. Union Bank of India v. Financial Creditors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Section 15 - Appeals seek to overturn the decision of the High Court declaring Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7 (3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as unconstitutional. Held, in any case, the decisions of the High Court rendered earlier do not stand in the way of the impugned amendments. They were with respect to sandstone alone, while in the impugned judgment the High Court applied it to all the minor minerals. In the decision rendered by the High Court dated 13.03.2013 all the applications were directed to be considered as per the amended Rules. In fact, the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned order is contrary to the earlier order passed. The impugned Rules have been introduced in exercise of the power conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. There is neither a right nor it gets vested through an application made over a government land. Law does not facilitate hearing the parties in bringing an amendment by an authority competent to do so. The High Court has totally misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a delegation of power to the first appellant which was rightly exercised as conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgments. (Para 22) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (Rajasthan); Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7 (3) - Legal Malice – Amendment made vide Notification dated 28.01.2011 to Rule 4 and 7 - It is contended that the impugned Rules have been brought forth only to nullify the effect of the judgments. The Appellants have duly complied with the orders passed. Even otherwise, law is quite settled that the basis of a judgment can be removed and a decision of the court cannot be treated like a statute, particularly when power is 2 available to act and it is accordingly exercised in public interest. In such a view of the matter, do not find any legal malice in the amendments. (Para 21) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : 2023 INSC 661

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - It is not mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for compensation under Section 166 before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred - Claimants can approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or the defendant resides. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010; Section 17 - Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948; Section 53 - Whether NGT can exercise jurisdiction when the matter is covered under the ESI Act? Held, that this issue merits consideration. But given the circumstances of the case, chose not to interfere with the compensation given and kept the question of law open for the future. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Only when the conviction arise out of the single transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited - Where there were several transactions over a period of time for which the cheques tendered towards payment, were dishonoured, convict cannot take benefit out of the ratio in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 504 and 506 - Office Altercation - Nature of allegations are of very trivial nature - there is no progress made in the proceedings since the chargesheet was filed in the year 2015 – Held, that continuing the proceedings would be a persecution and harassment - As such a petty incident which took place in their office should have been resolved by the parties on that day itself, instead of stretching it so far. (Para 6) Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : 2023 INSC 668

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 8 to Section 499 - It is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation - In this case, the accused lodged a complaint in writing addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating that a person had put up a shop by encroaching upon some land - Defamation complaint quashed. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2023 INSC 675

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302, 304 Part 1 - Conviction altered from S 302 to S 304 Part 1 - the possibility of the appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased cannot be ruled out - The weapon used in the crime is a stick which was lying in the house, and which, by no means, can be called a deadly weapon - it will also be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the offence took place. There used to be persistent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. (Para 13) Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : 2023 INSC 662

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 333, 353 and 451 – granted the benefit of probation to a social worker who was convicted of assaulting a public servant and reduced her sentence to 1 month. The incident related to 1992 when she had barged into the office of the Directorate (Women and Child Development) and abused and pushed a public official who got injured in her right finger. The matter was over 30 years old where appellant was out on bail all these years. Now, she’s an old lady of 62 years. The court acknowledged that there was no scuffle as such and the appellant was only raising the concerns of laborers. The court was cognizant that hurting a public servant is a serious offense where a 10-year jail term can be granted. But the court while considering all the factors in totality was of the view that leniency can be shown to the appellant. The Court allowed the appeal partly by upholding the conviction but at the same time reduced the jail term to 1-month simple imprisonment for offenses under sections 333 and 451 IPC. It also imposed a fine of 25,000 to be given to the injured public servant. (Para 3 - 13) Razia Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605 : 2023 INSC 667

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 342 and 376(2)(g) - Criminal Appeal against concurrent conviction in rape case - There was no evidence brought on record to connect the present appellants with the offence - Accused Acquitted. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : 2023 INSC 666

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The question with regard to the validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings, however could be raised at the subsequent stage of the trial also - The stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the trial - Competence of the court trying the accused also would be dependent upon the existence of the validity of sanction, and therefore it is always desirable to raise the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time - In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the trial court can discharge the accused and relegate the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with the law. (Para 10) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19(3), 19(4) - Findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the accused challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said subsection (3). (Para 12-14) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - The respondent has undergone over 620 days of custody. Since in the exercise of its discretion, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent should be released on bail, we are not interfering with the order under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 3) Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 – Criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark - Trial Judge has awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years. Except the admonition given to the appellant by the Apex Court no other reason has been assigned while imposing the maximum sentence of two years. It is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years, the provisions of Section 8(3) of the RP Act have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act would not have been attracted. Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years. (Para 5, 6) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 – Defamation - Stay of Conviction - Though the Appellate Court and the High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, the reasons for maximum sentence have not even been touched in their orders. No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. May be, had the judgment of the Apex Court in the contempt proceedings come prior to the speech, the appellant would have been more careful and exercised a degree of restraint while making the alleged remarks, which were found to be defamatory by the Trial Judge. (Para 7, 8) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - the ramification of Section 8 (3) of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects and particularly that no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge for imposing the maximum sentence which has the effect of incurring disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act, the order of conviction needs to be stayed, pending hearing of the present appeal. Therefore, stayed the order of conviction during the pendency of the present appeal. (Para 9, 10) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XII Rule 3 - Applications filed on the pretext of ‘clarification / addition’ while evading the recourse of review, ought not to be entertained and should be discouraged - Any alternation or addition to a judgment pronounced by Court can be made only to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising out of an accidental slip or omission - The power of Supreme Court under the Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules is limited and can only be exercised sparingly with due caution while confining itself within the parameters as described only to correct clerical/arithmetical mistakes or otherwise to rectify the accidental slip or omission. (Para 10-12) Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : 2023 INSC 671

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587
2. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : 2023 INSC 666
3. Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2023 INSC 670
4. Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594
5. Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603
6. E.S.I. Corporation v. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600
7. Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 608
8. In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604
9. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584
10. Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : 2023 INSC 671
11. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2023 INSC 675
12. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 607
13. Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588
14. Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : 2023 INSC 662
15. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596
16. Priya Pramod Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 591 : 2023 INSC 663
17. Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598
18. Razia Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605 : 2023 INSC 667
19. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593
20. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669
21. State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586
22. Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : 2023 INSC 668
23. Union Bank of India v. Financial Creditors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589
24. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674
25. Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : 2023 INSC 664