Supreme Court Monthly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Can a person who is ineligible to be an arbitrator nominate another arbitrator? Supreme Court refers issue to larger bench. JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 693

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitrator's fee cap is Rs 30 lakhs, ceiling limit applicable to individual arbitrators, not tribunal as a whole. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitrators cannot unilaterally fix their fee as it violates party autonomy. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitrators entitled to charge separate fee for claim & counter claim in arbitration proceedings. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - 'Hold preliminary hearings to fix arbitrator's fee': Supreme Court issues directives to govern fees of arbitrators. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6), 7 - High Court order proceeds on an understanding that the Counsel for both the sides did not dispute the fact that a clause of the Contract Agreement provided for appointment of an arbitrator - An understanding of counsel, cannot be regarded as a binding statement of law on the existence of an arbitration agreement. (Para 18) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7 - Principles governing what constitutes an arbitration agreement - Arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of parties to refer disputes to arbitration - mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration. (Para 8-9) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657

Award of Tender - Contractor cannot be blacklisted for life - One cannot be blacklisted for life. The order of blacklisting to the extent that it has not specified the period cannot be sustained. Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694

Award of Tender - There is no public duty on the part of the State to indicate the HSN code for GST rates in the tender document - Para 56- We are at a loss to further understand how in the name of producing a level playing field, the State, when it decides to award a contract, would be obliged to undertake the ordeal of finding out the correct HSN Code and the tax applicable for the product, which they wish to procure. This is, particularly so when the State is not burdened with the liability to pay the tax. The liability to pay tax, in the case before us, is squarely on the supplier. (Para 47) Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 - The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. (Para 18.1) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

CBSE is only a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the school affiliated to it is not a creature of the statute and hence not a statutory body - CBSE itself is not a statutory body nor the regulations framed by it has any statutory force. Secondly, the mere fact that the Board grants recognition to the institutions on certain terms and conditions itself does not confer any enforceable right on any person as against the Committee of Management - Thus, where a teacher or non ­teaching staff challenges action of Committee of Management that it has violated the terms of contract or the rules of the Affiliation Byelaws, the appropriate remedy of such teacher or employee is to approach the CBSE or to take such other legal remedy available under law. It is open to the CBSE to take appropriate action against the Committee of Management of the institution for withdrawal of recognition in case it finds that the Committee of Management has not performed its duties in accordance with the Affiliation Byelaws. (Para 28-33) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Central Administrative Tribunal - Punishment for contempt imposed on Advocate for alleged intemperate behaviour in court- SC sets aside CAT order as no trial was conducted - We would think that in the facts of this case, denial of a right of trial which is contemplated also under Section 14(1)(c) of the Act as also Rule 15 of the Rules has resulted in miscarriage of justice. (Para 26) Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692

Central Civil Service Rules - Rule 43 - Maternity Leave - Unless a purposive interpretation were to be adopted in the present case, the object and intent of the grant of maternity leave would simply be defeated. The grant of maternity leave under Rules of 1972 is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace. It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions, many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of a child, if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures. No employer can perceive child birth as detracting from the purpose of employment. Child birth has to be construed in the context of employment as a natural incident of life and hence, the provisions for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective. (Para 25) Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Averments in the plaint alone are to be examined while considering an application for rejection of plaint - No other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration. H.S. Deekshit v. Metropoli Overseas Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 703

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Order VII Rule 11 does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint only on an application - The power under Order VII Rule 11 is available to the court to be exercised suo motu - It would take a clear case where the court is satisfied. The Court has to hear the plaintiff before it invokes its power besides giving reasons under Order VII Rule 12. (Para 68) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A - A counter claim can be set up only "against the claim of the plaintiffs" - Since there was no claim of the plaintiffs regarding the property, the defendants were barred to raise any counter claim on these properties as it has nothing to do with the plaintiffs - A counter claim can be made by the defendant, even on a separate or independent cause of action. (Para 16) Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - A review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason - Scope of review jurisdiction discussed. (Para 11- 25) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - In order to satisfy the requirements prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is imperative for a party to establish that discovery of the new material or evidence was neither within its knowledge when the decree was passed, nor could the party have laid its hands on such documents/evidence after having exercised due diligence, prior to passing of the order. (Para 33) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2, 11 - A second appeal does not abate on death of one of the respondents when the right to sue survives against the surviving respondent - Abatement occurs only when the cause of action does not survive upon or against the surviving party. (Para 6-9) Sakharam v. Kishanrao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114 , Order XLVII - Distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record - An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction - A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review. (Para 26) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 - "for any other sufficient reason" means "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule". (Para 26) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law - It cannot be said that the civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues. A Court having jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter has the power to decide and may come either to a right or a wrong conclusion. Even if a wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by the jurisdictional court, the same is binding on the parties until it is set aside by an appellate court or through other remedies provided in law - Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews. A party cannot find solace in Section 151 to allege and rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuilt in the CPC. (Para 26-28) My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Law on ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts - The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of a civil nature is expansive and the onus to prove the ouster of the jurisdiction is on the party that asserts it. The court observed that even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them. (Para 15) Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976; Sections 71, 177 - The reliefs sought in the plaint are: (i) the removal of the unauthorized construction; (ii) a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from constructing over the open site and causing 'nuisance'; and (iii) restoration of the water connection as it was prior to the construction - The reliefs claimed are beyond the scope of the Act - A suit of this nature will be maintainable before the civil court and would not be barred by Section 71 or Section 177 of the Act. (Para 16) Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Sections 96-100 - Any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court - A person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned. (Para 29-31) My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 -Section 374 - Appeals from convictions - High Court cannot enhance the sentence of the accused without putting the accused to prior notice. Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 687

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - FIR -Police officers cannot exercise any discretion when they receive a complaint which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence - Whether or not the offence complained of is made out is to be determined at the stage of investigation and / or trial. If, after conducting the investigation, the police find that no offence is made out, they may file a B Report under Section 173 CrPC. However, it is not open to them to decline to register an FIR. (Para 18) XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - In cases alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault or any similar criminal allegation wherein the victim has possibly already been traumatized, the Courts should not further burden the complainant and should press upon the police to investigate. Due regard must be had to the fact that it is not possible for the complainant to retrieve important evidence regarding her complaint. (Para 25) XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - Magistrate has discretion in directing the police to investigate or proceeding with the case as a complaint case. But this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be guided by judicial reasoning - Where not only does the Magistrate find the commission of a cognizable offence alleged on a prima facie reading of the complaint but also such facts are brought to the Magistrate's notice which clearly indicate the need for police investigation, the discretion granted in Section 156(3) can only be read as it being the Magistrate's duty to order the police to investigate. In cases wherein, there is alleged to be documentary or other evidence in the physical possession of the accused or other individuals which the police would be best placed to investigate and retrieve using its powers under the CrPC, the matter ought to be sent to the police for investigation. (Para 24) XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 196 - Appeal against denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007 - Subsequent events have rendered the appeal into a purely academic exercise - Legal questions on the issue of sanction be left open to be considered in an appropriate case. Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 196 - The words "No Court shall take cognizance" employed in Section 196 CrPC and the consequential bar created under the said provision would undoubtedly show that the bar is against 'taking of cognizance by the Court' - It creates no bar against registration of a crime or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation as contemplated under Section 173, CrPC. (Para 10) Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - Summoning an accused person cannot be resorted to as a matter of course and the order must show application of mind. (Para 47) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 205 - There could be no justification for not dispensing with the personal appearance of the accused- directors, when the Company had entered appearance through an authorized officer. (Para 47) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207 - Sec 207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of the rights of the accused as well as to the principles of natural justice - Can't always insist that documents can be shared only after court takes cognizance of the complaint. (Para 56) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 300 (1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial? - Referred to larger bench. J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 311 - Application cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that it will lead to filling in the lacunae of the prosecution's case - Even the said reason cannot be an absolute bar to allowing an application under Section 311 - The resultant filling of loopholes on account of allowing the application is merely a subsidiary factor and the Court's determination of the application should only be based on the test of the essentiality of the evidence - It is the duty of the criminal court to allow the prosecution to correct an error in interest of justice. (Para 38 - 40) Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 311 - Scope - Essentiality of the evidence of the person who is to be examined coupled with the need for the just decision of the case constitute the touchstone which must guide the decision of the Court - The broad powers under Section 311 are to be governed by the requirement of justice. The power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The statutory provision goes to emphasise that the court is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the realization of justice is manifest. (Para 28 - 32) Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 311 - The Court is vested with a broad and wholesome power to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any material witness at any stage and the closing of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar. (Para 42) Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - The purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances which have emerged against him during the course of trial. A reasonable opportunity entails putting all the adverse evidences in the form of questions so as to give an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give his explanation- If all the circumstances are bundled together and a single opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may not able to put forth a rational and intelligible explanation. Such, exercises which defeats fair opportunity are nothing but empty formality. Non­ fulfilment of the true spirit of Section 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice to the accused and the Court may not have the benefit of all the necessary facts and circumstances to arrive at a fair conclusion. Such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless the accused fails to prove that grave prejudice has been caused to him -The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. (Para 25-28) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397, 401 - Any order which substantially affects the right of the parties cannot be said to be an "interlocutory order - The expression "interlocutory order" denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch upon the important rights or liabilities of parties. (Para 12) Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 672

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397, 401 - Maintainability of revision petition at the instance of de facto complainant - As the power of revision can be exercised by the High Court even suo moto, there can be no bar on a third party invoking the revisional jurisdiction and inviting the attention of the High Court that an occasion to exercise the power has arisen - The view of the High Court that a victim/ complainant needs to restrict his revision petition to challenging final orders either acquitting the accused or convicting the accused of a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation (three requirements mentioned under Section 372 CrPC) is unsustainable, so long as the revision petition is not directed against an interlocutory order. (Para 14 - 15) Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 672

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397, 401 - The order of the trial court declining to mark the statement of the informant as an exhibit is an intermediate order affecting important rights of the parties and cannot be said to be purely of an interlocutory nature - if the statement of the informant is not permitted to be marked as an exhibit, it would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice. (Para 13) Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 672

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 6) Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 653

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - If no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint, the complaint deserves to be quashed - When the complaint itself disclosed nothing more than a commercial relationship which broke, it is not possible to enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the language used in the text of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 15-18) Wyeth Limited v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 721

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specially laid down in the Section, the Court is duty bound to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when the exercise of such power is justified by the tests laid down in the said Section. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised if the interest of justice so requires. (Para 35) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 141 - The laudable object of preventing bouncing of cheques and sustaining the credibility of commercial transactions, resulting in enactment of Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act has to be borne in mind - A complaint should also not be read with a pedantically hyper technical approach to deny relief under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to those impleaded as accused, who do not have any criminal liability in respect of the offence alleged in the complaint. (Para 39) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 397 - Scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction - At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied - The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. (Para 22-23) X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 397 and 482 - Although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482/ Section 397 CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence - At the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person - Once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has 19 come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. (Para 21) X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 397 and 482 - Appeal against Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment discharging rape accused on the ground of delay to register FIR - Allowed - Perverse and utterly incomprehensible - Unfortunate father of the deceased had to come before this Court seeking justice - It was expected of the State to challenge the illegal order passed by the High Court. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book. X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Mediation lightens the load of the judges- Section 12A contemplated only for a class of suits not requiring urgent relief- suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, the Law-giver has carefully vouch-safed immediate access to justice as contemplated ordinarily through the courts. The carving out of a class of suits and selecting them for compulsory mediation, harmonises with the attainment of the object of the law. The load on the Judges is lightened. They can concentrate on matters where urgent interim relief is contemplated and, on other matters, which already crowd their dockets. (Para 54) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Pre-institution mediation - Section 12A not a procedural provision- Exhausting pre-institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. (Para 43) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - In a clear case, where on allegations in the suit, it is found that the suit is barred by any law, as would be the case, where the plaintiff in a suit under the Act does not plead circumstances to take his case out of the requirement of Section 12A, the plaint should be rejected without issuing summons. (Para 68) Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A - Pre-institution mediation declared to be mandatory- any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo moto by the court- Declaration with effect from 22.08.2022. (Para 84) Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Companies Act 2013 - Centre directed to ensure that the term of NCLT members appointed in future is 5 years as per Section 413 - We however direct that in making appointments to the NCLT in the future, the Union Government shall be bound by the statutory provisions embodied in Section 413 of the Companies Act 2013. (Para 27, 28) National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665

Companies Act 2013 - Term of members of National Company Law Tribunal - Section 413- Appointment of persons as members of the NCLT for a period of three years is not contemplated by the provisions of Section 413(1). An administrative notification for appointment has to be consistent with the statute which governs appointments to the Tribunal. (Para 17) National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665

Compassionate Appointment - Financial criteria for compassionate appointment given in a Compassionate Appointment Scheme cannot be ignored - Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress. (Para 20-22) Central Bank of India v. Nitin, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690

Constitution of India - 10th Schedule - Anti-defection law - Supreme Court refers to Constitution Bench questions relating to Speaker's powers for disqualification proceedings- Questions referred in dispute between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde over rift within Shiv Sena party - Prima facie doubts the law laid down in Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix versus Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697

Constitution of India 1950; Article 16(3), 35 - Under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, it is the Parliament alone, which is authorized to make any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State of Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within the State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. As per Article 35 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the Parliament shall have and the Legislature of a State shall not have the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters which, under clause (3) of Article 16 may be provided for law made by Parliament. Therefore, impugned Notification/Order making 100% reservation for the local resident of the concerned Scheduled Area/Districts (reservation on the basis of resident) is ultra vires to Article 35 r/w Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India. (Para 24) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950 - Fifth Schedule - The power of the Governor is pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament and the State. The legislative power can be exercised by the Parliament or the State subject to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Thereafter, it is ultimately observed and held that the power of the Governor does not supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. It has to be exercised subject to Part III and other provisions of the Constitution. (Para 18.4) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950 - Governor's Powers -Schedule 5 cannot be read as conferring upon the Governor absolute power and/or unfettered power, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - In cases of concurrent findings of fact this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the said findings, in exceptional circumstances, this Court is empowered to do so. If this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse, this Court would not be powerless to reappreciate the evidence. (Para 26) Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal appeal - The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all. (Para 8) State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - Whether a workman was gainfully employed or not is again a question of fact, and the finding of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court, cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court in exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 18) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Equal Protection of Law - Atypical families which are different from traditional family units also entitled to equal protection of law- Familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. These manifestations of love and of families may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts. Such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation. (Para 26) Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - 100% reservation is discriminatory and impermissible -quashes Jharkhand Govt notification providing 100% reservation for local residents in Scheduled Districts for Govt Posts in Class III & Class IV. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - 100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts / Areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens of non­scheduled areas / Districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. (Para 20, 23) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Section 313 CrPC confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21. (Para 19) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right to reproduction and child rearing important facets of one's right to privacy and dignity (Para 21) Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Execution of Arbitration awards against NHAI - If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court - We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court. (Para 6-7) National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The terms of employment of contract between a school and non ­teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non ­teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered by the court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition - An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public - While a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 279A - GST Council is empowered to make recommendations to the States on any matter relating to GST. (Para 7) Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which can be said to be subordinate legislation and cannot be said to be an Act or the Law made by the Parliament and / or State Legislature is beyond the scope and ambit of Governor's power under para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. (Para 20(3)) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Constitutional Courts can test constitutionality of legislative instruments (statute and delegated legislations) - The Courts are empowered to test both on procedure as well as substantive nature of these instruments - The test should be based on a combined reading of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution - doctrine of manifest arbitrariness. (Para 15.7 -15.8) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 366 (29A) (d) - Transfer of right to use goods "deemed sale" - principles explained. (Para 52) Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d)(ii) - Consumer complaint alleging premature encashment of Joint Fixed Deposit by bank in contravention of the terms and conditions is maintainable - A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' under the 1986 Act. As a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act. (Para 19) Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 14 - Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court - contemplates opportunity is provided to contemnor to make his defence - evidence to be taken as may be necessary. (Para 10) Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692

Contract Act 1872; Section 25(3) - it is clear that any agreement to pay a time barred debt, would be enforceable in law, within three years from the due date of payment, in terms of such agreement. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 18 - Confession recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police [Addl. SP] is admissible in evidence - The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and operate within similar spheres of authority. (Para 63) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707

Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(d) - More than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate. (Para 79) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707

Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 23(1)(a) - The order of approval need not name every accused person at the outset- Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA speaks of recording information about the commission of an offence of organized crime, and not of recording information about the offender. The competent authority may record information under Section 23(1)(a) once it is satisfied that an organized crime has been committed by an organized crime syndicate. (Para 72) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707

Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 3(2) - Those accused of abetting the commission of organized crime need not themselves be charged with committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years. They need only be abetting those who are guilty of committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years, which offence amounts to an organized crime. (Para 76) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707

Courts Act, 1918 (Punjab); Section 41 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - In the State of Haryana a court in second appeal is not required to formulate a substantial question of law, as what is applicable in Haryana is Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not Section 100 of CPC - But only such decisions are to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law or the court below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law - Second appeal is not a forum where court has to re-examine or re-appreciate questions of fact settled by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. (Para 10-15) Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The chain of evidence has to be so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved - The accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be' guilty before a Court can convict - Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 18-20) Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 670

Criminal Trial - Extra Judicial Confession - When there is a case hanging on an extra­judicial confession, corroborated only by circumstantial evidence, then the courts must treat the same with utmost caution. (Para 15) Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 670

Criminal Trial - Extra­judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra­judicial confession could not be sustained. (Para 10) State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663

Criminal Trial - Oral testimony may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. (Para 21-22) Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Criminal Trial - Previous enmity is a double­ edged sword. On one hand, it provides motive to the crime and on the other, there is a possibility of false implication. (Para 20) Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Criminal Trial - Related Witness - A close relative cannot automatically be characterized as an "interested" witness. However, even related witness statements need to be scrutinized more carefully. (Para 10) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Election Laws - Freebies Issue - Supreme Court refers to 3-judge bench - Identifies 3 issues - Petitioners prayed for reconsideration of SC judgment in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 9 SCC 659. Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 717

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 - Board of Control for Cricket in India [BCCI] can be said to be a "shop" for the purposes of attracting the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act - The activities of the BCCI can be said to be systematic commercial activities providing entertainment by selling tickets etc. (Para 9-12) Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 725

Evidence Act 1872 - Dying Declaration - When can be relied upon - Conditions - It could thus be seen that the Court is required to examine as to whether the dying declaration is true and reliable; as to whether it has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration; as to whether it has been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting. The dying declaration can be the sole basis for recording conviction and if it is found reliable and trustworthy, no corroboration is required. In case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon. However, this is with the condition that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness. In case there are circumstances wherein the declaration has not been found to be made voluntarily and is not supported by any other evidence, the Court is required to scrutinize the facts of an individual case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance. (Para 9) Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677

Evidence Act 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Case of two dying declarations, both contradictory, both recorded by judicial magistrates- Court relies on the dying declaration recorded after medical examination. (Para 16,17) Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 129 - Privilege over legal advise - Legal privilege not applicable to legal opinion used by SEBI to initiate prosecution, as such opinion is part of investigation. (Para 53-55) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 25, 27, 8 - No part of a First Information Report lodged by an accused with the police as an implicatory statement can be admitted into evidence - However, the statement can be admitted to identify the accused as the maker of the report - Further, that part of the information in the statement, which is distinctly related to the 'fact' discovered in consequence of such information, can also be admitted into evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, provided that the discovery of the fact must be in relation to a material object - The conduct of the accused is relevant and admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. (Para 5) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Fair Trial - The approach of SEBI, in failing to disclose the documents also raises concerns of transparency and fair trial. Opaqueness only propagates prejudice and partiality. Opaqueness is antithetical to transparency. It is of utmost importance that in a country grounded in the Rule of Law, institutions ought to adopt procedures that further the democratic principles of transparency and accountability. Principles of fairness and transparency of adjudicatory proceedings are the cornerstone of the principles of open justice. (Para 46) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Finance Act 1994; Section 65B (44) - Definition of "service" - does not include activities listed as "deemed" sale under Article 366(29A) of Constitution (Para 36) Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Banking Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985 - FERA Proceedings initiated against Banks - Show causes notices issued in the year 2002, i.e., after a period of almost one decade from the date of the alleged transactions of 1992-­1993, were not tenable in law - The Banks are required to preserve the record for five years and eight years respectively - Permitting the show cause notices and the proceedings continued thereunder of the transactions which have taken place much prior to eight years would be unfair and unreasonable. Union of India v. Citibank NA, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Forfeiture - Forfeitures can be categorized as civil and criminal. On the civil side, there can be in rem or in personam forfeitures. Punitive forfeitures under the criminal law are in personam. Criminal forfeitures usually take place at the conclusion of a trial, when the guilt of the accused is established. Standards of evidentiary requirement differ greatly between civil and criminal forfeiture - The utility of independent provisions of forfeiture, distinct from criminal prosecution, needs to be utilised in a proportional manner, looking at the gravity of the offence. Few examples which may pass the muster of proportionality for having such stringent civil forfeiture, may relate to crimes involving terrorist activities, drug cartels or organised criminal activities - The application of such a provision to numerous other offences which are not of such grave severity, would be of serious risk of being disproportionate, if procedures independent of criminal prosecution are prescribed. (Para 17.15, 17.28) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Goods and Service Tax - Document Identification Number (DIN) System - Union of India / GST Council to issue advisory / instructions / recommendations to the respective States regarding implementation of the system of electronic (digital) generation of a DIN in the indirect tax administration - States to consider to implement the system for electronic (digital) generation of a DIN for all communications sent by the State Tax Officers to taxpayers and other concerned persons so as to bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration at the earliest - It would be in the larger public interest and enhance good governance. (Para 6-7) Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Income Tax Act 1961; Section 260A - Appeals against orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) will lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year(s). (Para 33) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 127 - by administrative order a 'case' can be transferred from one Assessing Authority to another Assessing Officer located in a different State - power of transfer under Section 127 relates to the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities, not the ITAT of High Court - appellate jurisdiction of a High Court cannot dependent upon pure executive power exercised under Section 127 - transfer of a case from one judicial forum to another judicial forum, without the intervention of Court is against the independence of judiciary - even when cases of an assessee are transferred, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise appellate jurisdiction - this would be true even when the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year. [Para Nos. 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33] Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 260A - provides for a statutory appeal to the High Court against every order of the ITAT - does not specify the High Court before which an appeal would lie in cases where Tribunals operated for plurality of States - benches of the ITAT are constituted to exercise jurisdiction over more than one state; functions as the administrative discretion of the President - jurisdiction exercised by the benches of the ITAT do not follow the structure contemplated in Article 1 of the Constitution, which divides the Union into States and Union Territories - the appropriate High Court would be the one where the Assessing Authority is situated. [Para Nos. 13.3, 14, 15, 18, 30, 33] Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Jurisdiction of civil court not ousted when the matter relates to correction of date of birth - Jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted, as this is not a case relating to enforcement of a right or an obligation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Tulshi Choudhary v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 668

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. (Para 19) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - Retrenchment - Principle of law that reemployment of retrenched workmen does not entitle them to claim continuity of service - This principle will only apply to cases where the retrenchment is bona fide - When retrenchment is not bona fide and once the orders of retrenchment are set aside, the workmen will naturally be entitled to continuity of service with order of back wages as determined by a Tribunal or a Court of law. (Para 16) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Section 25F - Retrenchment - Principle that a policy decision for re-organising the business based on economic considerations is within an enterprise's proprietary decision and retrenchment in this context must be accepted as an inevitable consequence - The material requirement of bona fide of the decision - When the retrenchment seems to have been imposed as retribution against the workmen for going on a strike, this principle will not apply. (Para 15) Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - There can be no dispute with the proposition that the period of limitation for making an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is three years from the date of accrual of the right to sue, that is, the date of default. (Para 56) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 -There is no specific period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963, for an application under the IBC, before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). An application for which no period of limitation is provided anywhere else in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, is governed by Article 137 of the Schedule to the said Act. Under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed for such an application is three years from the date of accrual of the right to apply. (Para 55) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 14,18 - IBC does not exclude the application of Section 14 or 18 or any other provision of the Limitation Act. (Para 81) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The IBC is not just a statute for recovery of debts. It is also not a statute which only prescribes the modalities of liquidation of a corporate body, unable to pay its debts. It is essentially a statute which works towards the revival of a corporate body, unable to pay its debts, by appointment of a Resolution Professional. (Para 55) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Various stages involved in the corporate insolvency process in India discussed. (Para 34) Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14 - Moratorium on the initiation of CIRP proceedings and its effects - One of the purposes of the moratorium is to keep the assets of the Corporate Debtor together during the insolvency resolution process and to facilitate orderly completion of the processes envisaged under the statute. Such measures ensure the curtailing of parallel proceedings and reduce the possibility of conflicting outcomes in the process - one of the motivations of imposing a moratorium is for Section 14(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the IBC to form a shield that protects pecuniary attacks against the Corporate Debtor. This is done in order to provide the Corporate Debtor with breathing space, to allow it to continue as a going concern and rehabilitate itself. (Para 36) Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - An application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years. (Para 97) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - Entries in Books of Account/Balance sheet of a company can be treated as acknowledgement of liability in respect of debt payable to a financial creditor. (Para 85) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - Pleadings - An application under Section 7 in the prescribed form cannot be compared with the plaint in a suit, and cannot be judged by the same standards, as a plaint in a suit, or any other pleadings in a Court of law - There is no scope for elaborate pleadings - Documents filed along with the application, or later, and subsequent affidavits and applications would have to be construed as part of the pleadings. (Para 49,76) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - The period of limitation for making an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is three years from the date of accrual of the right to sue, that is, the date of default. (Para 69) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7(5)(b) - when the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that default has not occurred or the application is incomplete or any disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order, reject such application - provided it shall, before rejecting the application, give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority - the provision would extent to appeals - appeal is the continuation of original proceedings. (Para 70) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Sections 14, 33(5) - Customs Act, 1961 - IBC would prevail over Customs Act, to the extent that once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The customs authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act - Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act - After such assessment, the respondent authority has to submit its claims (concerning customs dues/operational debt) in terms of the procedure laid down, in strict compliance of the time periods prescribed under the IBC, before the adjudicating authority - In any case, the IRP/RP/liquidator can immediately secure goods from the respondent authority to be dealt with appropriately, in terms of the IBC. (Para 53) Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Interpretation of Statutes - If a statute prescribes a method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable. (Para 13) Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652

Interpretation of Statutes - The words used in a particular statute cannot be used to interpret the same word in a different statute especially when the two statues are not pari materia with each other and have a wholly different scheme from one another. (Para 11) Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 725

Judgments - Accessibility - Judgments to carry paragraph numbers and a table of contents in a longer version - Judgments should be accessible to persons from all sections of society including persons with disability - They should not have improperly placed watermarks and should be signed using digital signatures - They should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens. (Para 20-21) State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710

Judgments - Broad guidelines on judgment writing - While judges may have their own style of judgment writing, they must ensure lucidity in writing across these styles - Incoherent judgments have a serious impact upon the dignity of our institutions - "IRAC‟ method of judgment writing - The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. (Para 10-28) State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710

Judicial Service Examination - Particularly in such cases where there is a multiple choice question paper, it is always advisable that for such question papers, there shall always be an OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates so that the question paper can be retained by each of the participants and after the examination is held, a provisional answer key is to be uploaded inviting objections from the candidates who had participated in the selection process, to be furnished within a reasonable time and after collating such objections, the same be placed before a subject expert committee to be constituted by the recruiting/competent authority and after the report is submitted by the subject expert committee, the same be examined by the recruiting authority and thereafter the final answer key is to be uploaded. We make it clear that no presumption is to be drawn that the result has to be declared, but at least the candidates may be provided the final answer keys to enable them to make their own assessment. (Para 26) Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 720

Judicial Service Examination - Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019 - High Court dismissed writ petition challenging the examination process - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed : Valuate the marks obtained of question nos. 1,2,3 and 5 of Paper V (Criminal Law) (out of total 160 marks) and after undertaking the process, a fresh result of the written examination be declared of the candidates in reference to Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019 and those who qualify and fall in the zone of three times the number of vacancies may be called for viva­voce and result of the selection process, thereafter be finally declared in accordance with the scheme of Rules, 2007. Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 720

Judicial Service Examination - Where the written examination is followed with viva­voce, declaration of result of the written examination before conducting viva­voce may not be valid and justified but in cases where determination of merit is based on written examination, it must be declared and made available to candidates without any loss of time and this Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that in such cases where the written examination is followed with interview / viva­voce and the members in the interview board are made aware of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination that may likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of the candidates in viva­voce and in our considered view, it may always be avoided. (Para 28-29) Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 720

Legislation - Amendment - Retrospective or Prospective - Ordinarily, the effect of amendment by substitution would be that the earlier provisions would be repealed, and amended provisions would be enacted in place of the earlier provisions from the date of inception of that enactment. However, if the substituted provisions contain any substantive provisions which create new rights, obligations, or take away any vested rights, then such substitution cannot automatically be assumed to have come into force retrospectively. In such cases, the legislature has to expressly provide as to whether such substitution is to be construed retrospectively or not. (Para 54) Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712

Legislation - Amendment - When the legislature acts within its power to usher in a valid law and rectify a legal error, even after a court ruling, the legislature exercises its constitutional power to enact the law and does not overrule an earlier court decision - The power to amend, which includes the power to amend the statute with retrospective effect, is a constitutional power vested with the legislature, which is not confined and restricted to any particular type of statutes, namely, tax statutes. (Para 13, 22) Independent Schools Federation of India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 719

Legislation - Difference between retroactive effect and retrospective operation - Retrospective statute operates backwards and takes away vested rights accrued under law. The retroactive statute does not operate retrospectively, but it operates in future, albeit it does not become retrospective in operation when the operation is based on the character and status that arose earlier. Character or event which has happened in past or requisites which have been drawn from antecedent events cannot be necessarily construed as having retrospective effect. A retrospective statute means a statute which creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations already past or destroyed or impaired vested rights on and from the retrospective date. Independent Schools Federation of India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 719

Legislation - Legislature has power to enact retroactive/retrospective civil legislations under the Constitution. However, Article 20(1) mandates that no law mandating a punitive provision can be enacted retrospectively. Further, a punitive provision cannot be couched as a civil provision to by­pass the mandate under Article 20(1) of the Constitution which follows the settled legal principle that "what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly". (Para 17.10) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Limitation - When the proceedings are required to be initiated within a particular period provided under the Statute, the same are required to be initiated within the said period. However, where no such period has been provided in the Statute, the authorities are required to initiate the said proceeding within a reasonable period. No doubt that what would be a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 19) Union of India v. Citibank NA, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Limitation Act, 1961; Article 54 - Article 54 of the Limitation Act provides for two consequences based on the presence of fixed time period of performance. It is only in a case where the time period for performance is not fixed that the purchaser can take recourse to the notices issued and the vendors' reply thereto. (Para 37) Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - Acknowledgment in writing of liability, signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed - Even if the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, evidence might be given of the time when it was signed - An acknowledgment may be sufficient even though it is accompanied by refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy or is coupled with claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right. 'Signed' is to be construed to mean signed personally or by an authorised agent. (Para 93) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - As per Section 18 of Limitation Act, an acknowledgement of present subsisting liability, made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, has the effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgement is signed. Such acknowledgement need not be accompanied by a promise to pay expressly or even by implication. However, the acknowledgement must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired. (Para 62) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Maternity Leave - A woman cannot be declined maternity leave under the Central Services (Leave Rules) 1972 with respect to her biological child on the ground that her spouse has two children from his earlier marriage. Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718

Mediation - Concerns regarding dearth of trained and skilled mediators and lack of infrastructure - Knowledge of the laws, which are the subject matter of the suits under the Act, is indispensable for a Mediator to effectively discharge his duties. His role is supreme and it is largely shaped by his own knowledge of the law that governs commercial cases - The effective participation of the bar which must be adequately remunerated for its service will assist in mediation evolving. The concerned High Court may also undertake periodic exercise to establish a panel of trained mediators in District and Taluka levels as per need. (Para 74) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Mens Rea - Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence - A statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England – and also accepted in India – to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with common law rather than against it, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. The mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil which by itself is not decisive of the question as to whether the element of a guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only 33 where it is absolutely clear that implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated. (Para 14.10) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on the Union Government for incorrectly mentioning the name of a coal mining company in the list of the illegal coal block allotments made in the "Coalgate" scam. BLA Industries Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 683

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Claims- Does third party insurance cover pillion rider of a motor cycle? Supreme Court refers to larger bench. Mohana Krishnan S. v. K. Balasubramaniyam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 726

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - If the daughters of the deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial as the amount of compensation payable by the tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of the daughters being party to the claim application. It is since the daughters are married, the mother has not impleaded, the daughters as the claimants. It is not really of any consequence. (Para 11) Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 - It has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. (Para 10) Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - The compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. (Para 13) Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Independent witness - Independent witnesses turning hostile need not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused, when the mandatory procedure is followed and the other police witnesses speak in one voice - But if the Court has ­­ (i) to completely disregard the lack of corroboration of the testimony of police witnesses by independent witnesses; and (ii) to turn a Nelson's eye to the independent witnesses turning hostile, then the story of the prosecution should be very convincing and the testimony of the official witnesses notably trustworthy - If independent witnesses come up with a story which creates a gaping hole in the prosecution theory, about the very search and seizure, then the case of the prosecution should collapse like a pack of cards - Corroboration by independent witnesses is not always necessary. But once the prosecution comes up with a story that the search and seizure was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and they also choose to examine them before Court, then the Court has to see whether the version of the independent witnesses who turned hostile is unbelievable and whether there is a possibility that they have become turncoats. (Para 18) Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 724

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 54 - Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband. But to raise the presumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused. (Para 33A) Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 724

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 32B - While imposing higher than the minimum punishment, such of the factors which are to be taken into consideration have been provided under Section 32B of the NDPS Act - The old age of the accused, who is a poor illiterate lady completely unaware of the consequences - Sentence reduced. Budhiyarin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 667

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso, satisfying the court of sufficient cause. (Para 5-9) Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - Impleadment of all Directors of an Accused Company on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act - Specific averments have to be made in the pleadings to substantiate the said statement in the complaint, that such Director was in charge of and responsible for conduct of the business of the Company or the Company - It would be a travesty of justice to drag Directors, who may not even be connected with the issuance of a cheque or dishonour thereof, such as Director (Personnel), Director (Human Resources Development) etc. into criminal proceedings under the NI Act, only because of their designation. (Para 42-46) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - When the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director of a company, it is not necessary to make an averment in the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - Prefix "Managing" to the word "Director" makes it clear that the Director was in charge of and responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company - A Director or an Officer of the company who signed the cheque renders himself liable in case of dishonour. (Para 30, 37) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 143A - Failure of accused to pay interim compensation - The amount can be recovered as if it were a fine - The provision nowhere contemplates that an accused who had failed to deposit interim compensation could be fastened with any other disability including denial of right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. (Para 12-14) Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - A drawer handing over a cheque signed by him is liable unless it is proved by adducing evidence at the trial that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability. The evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the accused had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over. Therefore, no purpose is served by allowing the application for adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert - The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. (Para 4, 17) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Sections 2(e) and 13A - Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 - Constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 2(e) and insertion of Section 13A upheld - The amendment with retrospective effect is to make the benevolent provisions equally applicable to teachers - It seeks to bring equality and give fair treatment to the teachers. Independent Schools Federation of India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 719

Penal Code 1860; Section 304B - Offence of dowry death - the legislative intent of incorporating IPC section 304­B was to curb the menace of dowry death with a firm hand-in dealing with cases under section 304­B, such legislative intent has to be kept in mind- a strong message must go in the society that a person who commits such an offence of dowry death and/or the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act shall be dealt with an iron hand. Ajhola Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695

Penal Code, 1860 - Deceased was addicted to alcohol and used to constantly torment, abuse and threaten the accused (appellant) who was his brother - On the night of the occurrence, the deceased had consumed alcohol and had told the accused to leave the house and if not, he would kill the accused - There was sudden loss of self-control on account of a 'slow burn' reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation - There was temporary loss of self-control as the appellant had tried to kill himself by holding live electrical wires - The acts of provocation on the basis of which the accused caused the death of his brother were both sudden and grave and that there was loss of self-control - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 1 to Section 300 - Act of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual and reasonable. The law attaches great importance to two things when defence of provocation is taken - First, whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his mind. Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given. The retaliation should be proportionate to the provocation. The first part lays emphasis on whether the accused acting as a reasonable man had time to reflect and cool down. The offender is presumed to possess the general power of self-control of an ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the same situation in which the accused is placed, to temporarily lose the power of self-control. The second part emphasises that the offender's reaction to the provocation is to be judged on the basis of whether the provocation was sufficient to bring about a loss of self-control in the fact situation - Here again, the court would have to apply the test of a reasonable person in the circumstances. While examining these questions, we should not be short-sighted, and must take into account the whole of the events, including the events on the day of the fatality, as these are relevant for deciding whether the accused was acting under the cumulative and continuing stress of provocation. (Para 12) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 1 to Section 300 - Sustained provocation principle - The last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control - The cumulative or sustained provocation test would be satisfied when the accused's retaliation was immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort of provocative conduct, which would satisfy the requirement of sudden or immediate provocation - This principle does not do away with the requirement of immediate or the final provocative act, words or gesture. Further, this defence would not be available if there is evidence of reflection or planning as they mirror exercise of calculation and premeditation - The provocation may be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of the injury. The idea behind this exception is to exclude the acts of violence which are premeditated, and not to deny consideration of circumstances such as prior animosity between the deceased and the accused, arising as a result of incidents in the past and subsequently resulting in sudden and grave provocation-Thus, the gravity of the provocation can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse and need not be confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form of acts, words or gestures. (Para 12-14) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Penal Code, 1860; Exceptions to Section 300 - The burden of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be mixed with the burden on the accused of proving that the case falls within an exception. However, to discharge this burden the accused may rely upon the case of the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the court. (Para 15) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is an agreement to commit an offence - Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence- Some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established- It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence. (Para 22-25) Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 Exception 1 - Whether there was a grave and sudden provocation which would lead an accused to lose his power of self-control would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be disputed that how a person responds to a particular situation would depend upon the temperament of a particular person. A hot-tempered person may react differently as compared to a cool-headed person. (Para 8) Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 664

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302 - Whether the accused had an intention to commit the murder of the deceased or not would depend upon a combination of several factors. There cannot be a straight­jacket formula for deciding whether there was intention to commit the murder or not. (Para 7-8) Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 664

Penal Code, 1860; Section 375 and 90 - The parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time - For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage - FIR lodged three years thereafter - Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself Distinction between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - An alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment - The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it. (Para 20-23) M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Penal Code, 1860; Section 415, 420 - Firstly, to constitute cheating, a person must deceive another. Secondly, by doing so the former must induce the person so deceived to (i) deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (iii) intentionally induce the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and such an act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Power Purchase Agreement - Supreme Court holds that Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd needs to pay compounded interest to Adani Power limited, on account of "change in law". Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 711

Practice and Procedure - Judge who passed the impugned order had represented one of the opposite parties in certain collateral proceedings related to the subject property - Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done" - In the present circumstances, it may have been more apposite for the concerned Judge to have recused from this case - The appellant should have brought it to the notice of the learned senior Judge at the very first instance, and not at this belated stage. (Para 38-39) My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698

Precedent - A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided and not observations made in the facts of any particular case. (Para 79) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Precedents - Judicial decorum demands that if judgments passed by two judges' bench of equal strength are conflicting, the issue of law involved must be referred to a larger bench as the same is desirable to avoid confusion and maintain consistency of law. (Para 12) J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 8 - Interim possession by authority before conclusion of final trial to exceptional cases - Ratio in Vijay Madanlal Choudary & Ors v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633 requires further expounding in an appropriate case, without which, much scope is left for arbitrary application. (Para 17.27) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - Accused no.1 acquitted of scheduled offence - Prosecution of Wife and son of the accused under PMLA Act - The view as taken by the Trial Court in this matter had been a justified view of the matter and the High Court was not right in setting aside the discharge order despite the fact that the accused No. 1 had already been acquitted in relation to the scheduled offence and the present appellants were not accused of any scheduled offence. Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688

Principles of natural justice - The duty to act fairly by SEBI, is inextricably tied with the principles of natural justice, wherein a party cannot be condemned without having been given an adequate opportunity to defend itself. (Para 43) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; Chapter IV - Characterization of the confiscation proceedings under Chapter IV of the 2016 Act as Civil may therefore not be appropriate. There is an implicit recognition of the forfeiture being a punitive sanction, as the Officer is mandated to build a case against the accused for such confiscation, wherein the presumption of innocence is upheld structurally. (Para 17.31) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; Section 3(2) - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 - Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. (Para 18.1) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; Section 5 - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 - In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary - In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively - Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. (Para 18.1) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (Uttar Pradesh); Rule 5 - Suitable Employment - The words "suitable employment" must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words "suitable employment". (Para 10) Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 675

Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab); Section 13 - Demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises of a landlord. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713

Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab); Section 6 - The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 - Furthermore, the disabled are entitled to the fundamental right of equality enshrined in Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 including the right to carry out any occupation, profession, the right to life under Article 21, which has now been interpreted to mean the right to live with dignity, which has to be interpreted liberally in relation to the disabled. (Para 30) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - A person appointed under quota for Persons With Disabilities was allowed to choose his place of posting as per a beneficial circular issued by the Government- Later, in the state seniority list, his seniority was downgraded for having opted for transfer - The State relied on a provision in the service rules as per which a person will choose seniority within a district on transfer as per his request - The Court held that provision cannot alter state wise seniority - Also, the Court held that the benefit given to disabled persons as per the circular cannot be rendered otiose by imposing conditions. Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - One of the hindrances / disadvantages faced by the physically disabled persons is the inability to move freely and easily. In consideration of the obstacles encountered by persons with disabilities, the State has issued the said notification/circular dated 20th July 2000 for posting disabled persons to places of their choice, to the extent feasible. The object of this benefit to the physically disabled is to, inter alia, enable the physically disabled to be posted at a place where assistance may readily be available. The distance from the residence may be a relevant consideration to avoid commuting long distances. The benefit which has been given to the disabled through the Circular/Government Order cannot be taken away by subjecting the exercise of the right to avail of the benefit on such terms and conditions, as would render the benefit otiose. (Para 31) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The marginalization of the disabled/handicapped is a human rights issue, which has been the subject matter of deliberations and discussion all over the world. There is increasing global concern to ensure that the disabled are not sidelined on account of their disability. (Para 26) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

SEBI - Regulators should act fairly - SEBI is a regulator and has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties. Being a quasi­judicial body, the constitutional mandate of SEBI is to act fairly, in accordance with the rules prescribed by law. The role of a Regulator is to deal with complaints and parties in a fair manner, and not to circumvent the rule of law for getting successful convictions. There is a substantive duty on the Regulators to show fairness, in the form of public co­operation and deference. (Para 42) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

SEBI - Regulators should avoid frivolous criminal actions against large corporations - Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions, should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts ought to act as gate keepers for the same. Initiating frivolous criminal actions against large corporations, would give rise to adverse economic consequences for the country in the long run. Therefore, the Regulator must be cautious in initiating such an action and carefully weigh each factor. (Para 29) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

SEBI - Supreme Court directs Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to disclose to Reliance Industries Ltd the documents relied on by the SEBI to filed a criminal complaint against RIL over alleged irregularities in a share transaction in 1994. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 17 - The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment - SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. (Para 12) Bank of Baroda v. Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 671

Service Law - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - MACP Scheme is applicable with effect from 1.9.2008 and as per the MACP Scheme, the entitlement is to financial upgradation equivalent to the immediate next grade pay in the hierarchy of the pay bands -fulfilment of pre-promotional norms for grant of financial upgradation would not be insisted for Central Armed Force personnel who, for administrative or other reasons, could not be sent or undergo the pre-promotional course. (Para 12) Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 699

Service Law - There is difference between void and illegal appointments- Void appointments cannot be regularized. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Service Law - Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009; Rule 3(3) - A conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to grant the benefit of revision of pension notionally from 01.01.2006 or from the date of superannuation till 31.12.2008 and to pay/grant the benefit of revision of pension actually from 01.01.2009, which was based on their financial crunch/financial constraint - The cut ­off date has been fixed as 01.01.2009 on a very valid ground i.e., financial constraint - High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3(3). State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Service Tax - Finance Act 1994 - Held that for the period pre-Finance Act, 2007, service tax was not leviable on the indivisible/composite works contracts. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Service Tax - Finance Act 1994 - The contention of revenue to the effect that even prior to the 2007 amendment being made to the Finance Act, 1994 service tax on works contract was leviable is not correct. It was being levied on purely service contract and not on service element of works contract as there was no definition of a works contract till then. Hence, the amendment made to the Finance Act, 1994 by insertion of the definition of works contract as under clause (zzzza) is not clarificatory in nature. (Para 12) Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Service Tax - License to use software through End User License Agreement a "deemed sale" as per Article 366 (29A) (d) of the Constitution - Service tax not leviable merely because updates are given to the customer. Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Service Tax - Sale of software - whether service tax leviable - Once a lumpsum has been charged for the sale of CD (as in the case on hand) and sale tax has been paid thereon, the revenue thereafter cannot levy service tax on the entire sale consideration once again on the ground that the updates are being provided. We are of the view that the artificial segregation of the transaction, as in the case on hand, into two parts is not tenable in law. It is, in substance, one transaction of sale of software and once it is accepted that the software put in the CD is "goods", then there cannot be any separate service element in the transaction. We are saying so because even otherwise the user is put in possession and full control of the software. It amounts to "deemed sale" which would not attract service tax. (Para 55) Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Service Tax on Work Contracts - The judgment in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra) has been correctly decided and does not call for a reconsideration insofar as the period prior to 1st June, 2007 is concerned. (Para 13) Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 10 - 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force. Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16 - In order to prove readiness and willingness, the burden is on the purchaser to prove that they were always ready and it is only the vendor who refused to perform the contract for extraneous consideration - When the purchaser was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated and accordingly, specific performance cannot be granted for the entire contract. (Para 63-69) Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712

Sports Law - National Sports Code 2011 can't be read like a statute' : Supreme Court allows players to vote in AIFF executive committee election. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 661

Tender - A company submitted bids for a tender floated for Diesel Locomotive Work. The company argued that since the HSN for GST rate was not mentioned in the tender document, it wrongly added 18% GST in its bid, and lost out to other bidders who included 5% GST - The company appraoched the High Court which directed that HSN code should be mentioned to ensure a "level playing field" - Supreme Court reversed the High Court's view. Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691

Trial in cases of Sexual Harassment/Violence - The importance of courts dealing with complainants of sexual harassment and sexual assault in a sensitive manner reiterated- Guidelines: a. Allowing proceedings to be conducted in camera, where appropriate, either under Section 327 CrPC or when the case otherwise involves the aggrieved person (or other witness) testifying as to their experience of sexual harassment / violence; b. Allowing the installation of a screen to ensure that the aggrieved woman does not have to see the accused while testifying or in the alternative, directing the accused to leave the room while the aggrieved woman's testimony is being recorded; c. Ensuring that the counsel for the accused conducts the cross-examination of the aggrieved woman in a respectful fashion and without asking inappropriate questions, especially regarding the sexual history of the aggrieved woman. Cross-examination may also be conducted such that the counsel for the accused submits her questions to the court, who then poses them to the aggrieved woman; d. Completing cross-examination in one sitting, as far as possible. (Para 30-35) XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676

Tribunal appointments - Court refuses to entertain the challenge made by the NCLT Bar Association against the Centre's 2019 notification fixing the term of members as 3 years, as the members themselves have not challenged the same-The issue in regard to the term of appointment being less than the term prescribed statutorily has only been raised towards the tail end of the tenure and by the Bar Association and not the Members themselves. Entertaining the submissions of the petitioner would incidentally lead the Court into an evaluation of the suitability, character and performance of individual Members in a petition to which they are not parties. Such an exercise would, in the circumstances, be wholly inappropriate - The Bar Association cannot have a choice in regard to who should be a Member of the Tribunal. (Para 22, 26) National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665

UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2009 - National Eligibility Test (NET) as minimum stipulation for appointment as Lecturer in any university - candidates who had acquired their Ph.D. in compliance with the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M. Phil / Ph.D. Degree) Regulations 2009 introduced on 01.06.2009, were exempt from qualifying in the NET. [Para No. 4] University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680

UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2010 - NET exemption for candidates who had acquired their Ph.D. degrees in accordance with the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations continued - batches of PhD holders who had been awarded their doctoral degrees prior to the cut-off date under the 2009 UGCR, suddenly became disentitled to claim exemption and were forced to appear and qualify in the NET to continue with employment - UGC decided to extend NET exemption to both pre-2019 and post 2009 PhD holders - Central Government did not agree - array of litigation followed - UGC amended Regulation in 2016 and 2018 to clarify both pre and post 2009 PhD holders are exempted from taking NET - intention to protect the pre-2009 Ph.D. holders, who may have been appointed in various universities and taught for many years, is abundantly clear from the language used in the amendments. [Para Nos. 6, 14, 17, 18] University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680

UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2016 - being a clarificatory amendment is retrospective in nature - language of the amended provisions also spells out retrospective application. [Para Nos. 18, 19, 23, 24] University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680

UGC Regulations 2016 exempting PhD holders from NET Qualification will apply retrospectively. University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking enhancement of retirement age of college teachers in Kerala as 65 years as per UGC recommendation - Affirms Kerala HC view that the fixing of age of superannuation is a policy decision of the state government - Takes note of a circular issued by the Central Government in 2012 which stated that the UGC recommendation regarding enhancement of retirement age has been withdrawn and that the issue is left to the policy decision of the respective state governments. Dr. J. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 655

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - The UGC Regulations have to be consistent with the directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes, as may be given by the Central Government as per Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956. In the case of any dispute between UGC and the Central Government, as to whether a question is a question of policy relating to national purpose, the decision of the Central Government prevails over that of UGC. [Para 8] Dr. J. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 655

Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial review in contractual matters - limited scope of interference- unless the state action is clearly arbitrary, illegal, mala fide or contrary to the statute, courts would be loathe to interfere. (Para 23) Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ajhola Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695
2. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 661
3. Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674
4. Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 696
5. Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 717
6. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648
7. Bank of Baroda v. Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 671
8. BLA Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 683
9. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 725
10. Budhiyarin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 667
11. Central Bank of India v. Nitin, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690
12. Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694
13. Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660
14. Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650
15. Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718
16. Dr. J. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 655
17. Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682
18. H.S. Deekshit v. Metropoli Overseas Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 703
19. Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 720
20. Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 672
21. Independent Schools Federation of India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 719
22. J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 669
23. Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658
24. Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666
25. JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 693
26. Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
27. Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689
28. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673
29. M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701
30. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657
31. Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677
32. Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649
33. Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692
34. Mohana Krishnan S. v. K. Balasubramaniyam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 726
35. My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698
36. National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665
37. National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705
38. Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684
39. Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652
40. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723
41. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714
42. Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688
43. Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716
44. Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678
45. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686
46. Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654
47. Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 687
48. Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702
49. Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 670
50. Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709
51. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659
52. S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685
53. Sakharam v. Kishanrao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 722
54. Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 724
55. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651
56. Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679
57. Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 653
58. St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708
59. State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710
60. State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663
61. State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 706
62. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697
63. Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715
64. Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 675
65. Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647
66. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713
67. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656
68. Tulshi Choudhary v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 668
69. Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691
70. Union of India v. Citibank NA, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704
71. Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 699
72. Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700
73. University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680
74. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 711
75. Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662]
76. Wyeth Limited v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 721
77. X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681
78. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676
79. Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 664
80. Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707