Supreme Court Monthly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- September 2022 (Citations 727 - 814)

Administrative Law - Doctrine of "unreasonableness" - It is the intention of a legislature, when using statutory language that confers broad choices on the administrative agencies, that courts should not lightly interfere with such decisions, and should give considerable respect to the decision-makers when reviewing the manner in which discretion was exercised. However, discretion must still be exercised in a manner that is within a reasonable interpretation of the margin of manoeuvre contemplated by the legislature, in accordance with the principles of the rule of law. (Para 78) Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Administrative Law - Inter-departmental communications cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right - Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated. (Para 14-15) Mahadeo v. Sovan Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 730

Administrative Law - The decision of the State in its executive power cannot be contradictory to the express provision of the statutory Rules, but where the statute and Rules are silent, the State Government, in exercise of its executive power, is competent to supplement the rules. The executive power of the State is to supplement and not supplant. Director of Teacher's Training Research Education v. OM Jessymol, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 759

Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017; Section 12, 14 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 1 Rule 10(2), Order XLIII Rule 1 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - An order for addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act - An appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act - An intra-court appeal under the Admiralty Act to the Commercial Division of the High Court would lie from any judgment, decree or final order under the Admiralty Act or an interim order under the Admiralty Act relatable to the orders specified in Order 43, Rule 1 - An order for addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act - It could not possibly have been the legislative intent of the Admiralty Act to make all interim orders appealable. (Para 81-88) Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy v. Banque Cantonale De Geneve, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 793

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Relief related to tax concessions are not arbitrable. Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 774

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7) - The arbitrator has the discretion to award post-award interest on a part of the 'sum' - The arbitrator has the discretion to determine the rate of reasonable interest, the sum on which the interest is to be paid, that is whether on the whole or any part of the principal amount, and the period for which payment of interest is to be made - whether it should be for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date of the award - The arbitrator must exercise the discretionary power to grant post award interest reasonably and in good faith, taking into account all relevant circumstances - The purpose of granting post-award interest is to ensure that the award debtor does not delay the payment of the award. (Para 18-22) Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7, 11 - Section 7 of the Act does not mandate any particular form for the arbitration clause - Even if we were to assume that the subject­clause lacks certain essential characteristics of arbitration like "final and binding" nature of the award, the parties have evinced clear intention to refer the dispute to arbitration and abide by the decision of the tribunal. The party autonomy to this effect, therefore, deserves to be protected - The deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause - Courts to give greater emphasis to the substance of the clause, predicated upon the evident intent and objectives of the parties to choose a specific form of dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them. (Para 14-28) Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Developers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 9 - Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9 - A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice - The power under Section 9 should not ordinarily be exercised ignoring the basic principles of procedural law as laid down in the CPC, but the technicalities of CPC cannot prevent the Court from securing the ends of justice - If a strong prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief being granted, the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC. (Para 39-50) Essar House Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 765

Bail - Post-conviction bail – All persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail. Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 788

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976; Sections 16-17- For attracting the provision of Section 16 of the Act, the prosecution must establish that an accused has forced and compelled the victim to render bonded labour. This force and compulsion must be at the instance of the accused and the prosecution must establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, under Section 17 of the Act, there is an obligation on the prosecution to establish that the accused has advanced a bonded debt to the victim. (Para 11) Selvakumar v. Manjula, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 786

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 173L - For the purpose of considering the value for refund under Section 173­L what is required to be considered is the value of the returned goods - "value" means the market value of the excisable goods and not the ex­duty value thereof. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the assessee that the returned goods may be treated as a raw material and therefore the "value" of the raw material can be considered for the purpose of "value" while determining the refund under Section 173­L cannot be accepted. (Para 5) Peacock Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 740

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 10 - Plaintiffs are the domius litis - Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs - In case the counter-claim is allowed, it will not be open for the plaintiffs to contend that no decree in the counter-claim be passed in absence of the subsequent purchasers - Non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. (Para 5 - 7) Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order II Rule 2 - Order II Rule 2 of the CPC cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit - It applies only for a subsequent suit. (Para 49-50, 70) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side - The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) - A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence - In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (Para 70) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (Para 70) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. - Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation - Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint - Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed - Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (Para 70) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) - Issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts - Though limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it will shed the said character and would get confined to one of question of law when the foundational fact(s), determining the starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in the plaint averment - Tthe provisions under Order XIV Rule 2(1) and Rule 2(2)(b) permit to deal with and dispose of a suit in accordance with the decision on the preliminary issue. (Para 18, 26) Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Order XXI is exhaustive and in the nature of a complete Code as to how the execution proceedings should take place. This is the second stage after the success of the party in the civil proceedings. It is often said in our country that another legal battle, more prolonged, starts in execution proceedings defeating the right of the party which has succeeded in establishing its claim in civil proceedings - There cannot be a licence to prolong the litigation ad infinitum. (Para 39) Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 90(3) - The twin conditions of material irregularity of fraud and substantial injury has to be satisfied before an auction sale can be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90(3) -No sale could be set aside unless the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of irregularity or fraud in completing or conducting the sale. (Para 11, 38) Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - The principle of constructive res judicata has no application when there was no formal adjudication between the parties after full hearing. (Para 52) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 2(12) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 111(a) - Tenant while continuing in possession after the expiry of the lease liable to pay mesne profits - A tenant at sufferance is not a tenant by holding over. While a tenant at sufferance cannot be forcibly dispossessed, that does not detract from the possession of the erstwhile tenant turning unlawful on the expiry of the lease. (Para 60) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 744

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96, 105 and Order IX Rule 13 - The appellant, while challenging ex parte decree by filing an appeal, can always point out from the record of the trial court that the order passed to proceed with the suit ex parte against him was illegal - Only when the application made by a defendant under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC is dismissed that such a defendant cannot agitate in the appeal against ex parte decree that the order directing that the suit shall proceed ex parte was illegal or incorrect - Though the appellant would not be entitled to lead evidence in appeal for making out a sufficient cause for his absence before the trial court, he can always argue on the basis of the record of the suit that either the suit summons was not served upon him or that even otherwise also, the trial court was not justified in proceeding ex parte against him. (Para 8) G.N.R. Babu @ S.N. Babu v. Dr. B.C. Muthappa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 748

Code of Civil Procedure, 1973; Order I Rule 9 - A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. It has been held that if a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed - For being a necessary party, the twin test has to be satisfied. The first one is that there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings. The second one is that no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such a party. (Para 17-20) Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 125 - The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute - Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children - The object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. (Para 9-13) Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 145 - While dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC because of the pendency of civil litigations, the learned Magistrate could not be considered justified in making any observations or returning any findings as regards rights of the parties qua the property in question. Mohd Shakir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence - The registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law - The act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. (Para 12) Tarak Dash Mukharjee v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 157 (1) - The word "forthwith' in Section 157(1) of the Code is to be understood in the context of the given facts and circumstances of each case and a straight­jacket formula cannot be applied in all cases. But where ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and thus unacceptable, a long delay has to be taken note of by the Court. The mandate of Section 157(1) of the Code being clear, the prosecution is expected to place on record the basic foundational facts, such as, the Officer who took the first information report to the jurisdictional court, the authority which directed such a course of action and the mode by which it was complied. Explaining the delay is a different aspect than placing the material in compliance of the Code - The delay in forwarding the FIR may certainly indicate the failure of one of the external checks to determine whether the FIR was manipulated later or whether it was registered either to fix someone other than the real culprit or to allow the real culprit to escape. While every delay in forwarding the FIR may not necessarily be fatal to the case of the prosecution, Courts may be duty bound to see the effect of such delay on the investigation and even the creditworthiness of the investigation. (Para 61- 66) Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - The failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21 - Prejudice is inherent and need not be established by the accused. (Para 30-31) Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 195, 340 - Whether Section 340 CrPC mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 CrPC by a Court - There is no question of opportunity of hearing in a scenario of this nature - Scope and ambit of such a preliminary inquiry. State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 776

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2(wa), 372 - Right of appeal to the victims - Public, who are recipients of these services, also become victims, though indirectly, because the consequences of such appointments get reflected sooner or later in the work performed by the appointees - The appellant in one of these appeals, is a victim, as he could not get selected on account of the alleged corrupt practices. Therefore, the contention regarding the locus standi of the appellants is to be rejected. (Para 18- 24) P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227 - Simple and necessary inquiry to be conducted for a proper adjudication of an application for discharge for coming to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the accused to stand trial - The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case. (Para 12-18) Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 763

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 239 - Scope and ambit - No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage - the only consideration at the stage of Section 239/240 is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless- The word "groundless" would connote no basis or foundation in evidence. The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever. (Para 60 - 74) State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397 - 401 - The revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure. (Para 76) State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - The offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail. (Para 7) State of Jharkhand v. Salauddin Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 755

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others. (Para 42) P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138,141 - High Court should not interfere under Section 482 of the Code at the instance of an accused unless it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques - If any Director wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he/she is really not concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he/she must in order to persuade the High Court to quash the process either furnish some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his/her contention. He/she must make out a case that making him/her stand the trial would be an abuse of process of Court. (Para 47) S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 772

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. The Court cannot deal with cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices, like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder. (Para 44) P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - In cases where the victim of rape is alive and is in a position to testify in court, it may be possible for the prosecution to take a chance by not medically examining the accused. But in cases where the victim is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence, medical evidence assumes great importance. The failure of the prosecution to produce such evidence, despite there being no obstacle from the accused or anyone, will certainly create a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution and give rise to a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. (Para 80) Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A, 164A - While Section 53A enables the medical examination of the person accused of rape, Section 164A enables medical examination of the victim of rape. Both these provisions are somewhat similar and can be said approximately to be a mirror image of each other. But there are three distinguishing features - discussed. (Para 79) Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 438, 439 - Bail applications must be decided as expeditiously as possible and not to be posted in due course of time. Tulsi Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 764

Compassionate Appointment - Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified - Compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. (Para 8) Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Constitution of India, 1950 - 10th Schedule - the Speaker was not within his jurisdiction to issue directions other than those pertaining to disqualification. Gyanendra Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Constitution of India, 1950 - Supreme Court upholds Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act, 2014 - Holds that Haryana State legislature has competence to enact the said Act - The Act does not violate the rights of Sikhs under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution - Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 782

Constitution of India, 1950 - Under the X^th Schedule of the Constitution, the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have power to deny pension and other benefits available to a former MLA while deciding a disqualification plea against him. Gyanendra Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave to appeal - Unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, this Court would not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (Para 75) Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 should not ordinarily be exercised to interfere with an otherwise just and reasonable order by recourse to hyper technicality upon a narrow, rigid and pedantic interpretation of the guidelines. (Para 55) State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 - Fundamental rights under Article 19 cannot be restricted through executive instructions -citizen cannot be deprived of the said right except in accordance with law. It has further been held that the requirement of law for the purpose of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution or otherwise. [Para 43] Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 - Supreme dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Pharmacy Council of India against the judgments of certain High Courts which set aside the moratorium imposed on starting new Pharmacy colleges for 5 years. Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(g) - The right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an execution instruction. [Para 54, 55] Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Exhumation - Once buried, a body should not be disturbed - the Union Government should consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation. The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death - Family members also have a right to perform the last rites in accordance with the religious traditions. Mohammed Latif Magrey v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial interference in tender conditions - As per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. As per the settled position of law, the terms of the Invitation to Tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Government/tenderer/tender making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. (Para 6) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - The Statute provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the Tribunal - The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act - The question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. (Para 6-8) State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 784

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender condition of Airport Authority of India challenged by NGO - Supreme Court says NGO had no locus standi to challenge as none of the bidders challenged the conditions. (Para 5) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser, or logical. (Para 7) Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The laws of limitation do not apply to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - Relief under Article 226 being discretionary, the Courts might in their discretion refuse to entertain the Writ Petition, where there is gross delay on the part of the Writ Petitioner, particularly, where the relief sought would, if granted, unsettle things, which are already settled. (Para 26) State of Rajasthan v. O.P. Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 785

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - The question of repugnancy arises only if both the Parliament and the State legislature have made law with respect to any one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent list (List III). (Para 18) Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Thus, a person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law. (Para 30) Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Mandamus - A mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact or amend legislation - Writ petition seeking direction to amend the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 204th report - Dismissed. S. Venkatesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 752

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ petition maintainable on the ground that earlier judgment does not lay down the correct law-though the concept of finality of judgment has to be preserved, at the same time, the principle of ex debito justitiae cannot be given a go­bye. If the Court finds that the earlier judgment does not lay down a correct position of law, it is always permissible for this Court to reconsider the same and if necessary, to refer it to a larger Bench. (Para 41) HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 324(1), 243-K and 243-ZA(1) - The Election Commission has wide powers under Article 324(1) to issue directions necessary for conducting free and fair elections, subject to the contours of law. The power of the Election Commission includes the power to issue directions where the law is silent. The State Election Commission has the same powers under Article 243-K and 243-ZA(1) as the Election Commission of India has under Article 324(1). (Para 68) S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15 - Appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement - Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified. (Para 8) Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 2,3 13, 19(1)(e) - Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 - There is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State -The Reorganization Act or any guidelines framed thereunder cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country - When a State is divided and the employees and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and Regulations and by guidelines - However they have to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (Para 59-68) State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Delivering a defective and old model car against a booking for a new car made by a customer who has paid full sale consideration is an "unfair trade practice" - Non delivery of a new car can be said to be an unfair trade practice and even it can be said to be dishonesty on the part of the dealer and against the morality and ethics - Once the new car was booked and the full sale consideration was paid, a duty was cast upon the dealer to deliver a new car which is not defective. (Para 7.2) Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record (Para 7.1) Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical Negligence - The cause of action for claiming compensation in cases of failed sterilization operation arises on account of negligence of the surgeon and not on account of child birth. Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child to go or not to go for medical termination of pregnancy. Having gathered the knowledge of conception in spite of having undergone sterilization operation, if the couple opts for bearing the child, it ceases to be an unwanted child. Compensation for maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed. Civil Hospital v. Manjit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 781

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(o) - Doctors and hospitals who render service without any charge whatsoever to every person availing of the service would not fall within the ambit of 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purposes only would not alter the position in respect of such doctors and hospitals. Civil Hospital v. Manjit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 781

Contract Act, 1872 - Contract of indemnity, contract of guarantee and pledge - The contract of indemnity is a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person. In a contract of indemnity, a promisee acting within the scope of his authority is entitled to recover from the promisor all damages and all costs which he may incur. A contract of guarantee, on the other hand, is a promise whereby the promisor promises to discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the surety. The person in respect of whose default, the guarantee is given is the principal debtor and the person to whom the guarantee is given is the creditor. Anything done or any promise made for the benefit of the principal debtor may be a sufficient consideration to the surety for giving the guarantee. On the other hand, the bailment of goods as security for payment of a debt or performance of a promise is a pledge. (Para 35) Maitreya Doshi v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 789

Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (Gujarat); Section 20(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Application for extension of time for investigation - Firstly, in the report of the Public Prosecutor, the progress of the investigation should be set out and secondly, the report must disclose specific reasons for continuing the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days. Therefore, the extension of time is not an empty formality - The scope of the objections may be limited - The accused can always point out to the Court that the prayer has to be made by the Public Prosecutor and not by the investigating agency. Secondly, the accused can always point out the twin requirements of the report in terms of proviso added by sub­section (2) of Section 20 of the 2015 Act to sub­section (2) of Section 167 of CrPC. The accused can always point out to the Court that unless it is satisfied that full compliance is made with the twin requirements, the extension cannot be granted. (Para 28-29) Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (Gujarat); Section 20(5) - In State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (2008) 13 SCC 5, it was held that the expression "or under any other Act" appearing in sub­section (5) of Section 21 of the MCOCA was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, it must be struck down. Hence, the same expression used in sub­section (5) of Section 20 of the 2015 Act infringes Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. (Para 21) Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Courts Act, 1918 (Punjab); Section 41 - Second appeal is not a forum where the court is to re­examine or re­appreciate the question of fact settled by the trial court or the Appellate Court - Though in view of Section 41 of the Punjab Act, it is not necessary to frame a substantial question of law, the jurisdiction of the High Court under second appeal cannot be exercised for re­appreciation of evidence. (Para 16-17) Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (D), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 762

Criminal Investigation - There cannot be two investigating agencies with respect to the same FIRs/complaints arising out of the same incident/occurrence with respect to different co-accused - Supreme Court transfers FIRs against Times Now Anchor Navika Kumar over Prophet remarks to Delhi - Transfer applicable to Future FIRs likely to be registered over the same telecast. Navika Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 796

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Court has to see whether the chain of circumstances is complete and unbroken and keep in mind five golden principles or the panchsheell. (Para 9) Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused - A very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt - Parameters under which the case of circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated. Referred to Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343. (Para 12) Munikrishna @ Krishna v. State by UIsoor PS, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 812

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Gravity of crime is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the appropriate punishment - It is always the duty of the Court to balance aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances at the time of imposing sentence - If undue sympathy is shown by reducing the sentence to the minimum, it may adversely affect the faith of people in efficacy of law - The judicial discretion is always guided by various considerations such as seriousness of the crime, the circumstances in which crime was committed and the antecedents of the accused. (Para 12-13) Sahebrao Arjun Hon v. Raosaheb Kashinath Hon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 745

Death Penalty - In all cases where imposition of capital punishment is a choice of sentence, aggravating circumstances would always be on record, and would be part of the prosecution's evidence, leading to conviction, whereas the accused can scarcely be expected to place mitigating circumstances on the record, for the reason that the stage for doing so is after conviction. This places the convict at a hopeless disadvantage, tilting the scales heavily against him. This court is of the opinion that it is necessary to have clarity in the matter to ensure a uniform approach on the question of granting real and meaningful opportunity, as opposed to a formal hearing, to the accused/convict, on the issue of sentence. Consequently, this court is of the view that a reference to a larger bench of five Hon'ble Judges is necessary for this purpose. Let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard. In Re: Framing Guidelines regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be considered while imposing Death Sentences, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 777

Death Penalty - Is Same day sentencing proper? Supreme Court refers issue to 5-judge bench in view of conflicting judgments. In Re: Framing Guidelines regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be considered while imposing Death Sentences, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 777

Disciplinary Proceedings - Criminal and departmental, are entirely different and merely because one has been acquitted in a criminal trial that itself will not result in the reinstatement in service when one has been found guilty in a departmental proceeding - When it is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a "benefit of doubt", there cannot be reinstatement. (Para 8-14) State of Rajasthan v. Phool Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735

Disciplinary Proceedings - If the Court finds that furnishing of the enquiry report would have made a difference to the result, in such case it should set aside the order of punishment. Where the Court sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief which should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to back­wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. (Para 7) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prabhat Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Disciplinary Proceedings - Once the Court set aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law. (Para 6) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prabhat Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Education - Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 - Government Order fixing 50% marks for eligibility to undergo Teachers' Training Certificate Course for appointment in the State of Tamil Nadu - Upheld. Director of Teacher's Training Research Education v. OM Jessymol, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 759

Election - A false declaration with regard to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on the election of the candidate. It may be presumed that a false declaration impacts the election. (Para 38) S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 - Ex post facto Environmental Clearance - EP Act does not prohibit ex post facto EC. Some relaxations and even grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifications and/or applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance with environment norms, is not impermissible - Ex post facto EC should not ordinarily be granted, and certainly not for the asking. At the same time ex post facto clearances and/or approvals cannot be declined with pedantic rigidity, regardless of the consequences of stopping the operation. (Para 46-50) D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 791

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 25 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 161 - Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements - A confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence - Statement given by an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible as evidence. (Para 13) Munikrishna @ Krishna v. State by UIsoor PS, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 812

Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu); Section 15(2) - Highways Rules, 2003 (Tamil Nadu); Rule 5(2) - Highways Department may or may not file a statement by way of answer to the objections by land owners - Not a mandatory requirement - Non-filing of a statement by way of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non­furnishing the copy of the same to the original land owners shall not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process. (Para 5.1) M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu); Section 15(2) - Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003; Rule 5 - Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act. (Para 7) M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Insider trading – Profit motive – Mitigating factor – Distress sale – Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992 (15 of 1992) – Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 – Regulations 2(d), 2(e), 2(ha), 2(k), 3, 4 – Appeal under Section 15Z – Transaction likely to result in loss cannot be basis to accuse insider in possession of price-sensitive information of insider trading - Actual gain or loss immaterial – Motive for making a gain essential – MD & Chairman who sold shares to fund corporate debt restructuring (CDR) package before information about cancellation of shareholders' agreements disclosed to the public held not guilty of insider trading – Similar to a distress sale – Test applied, whether an attempt to take advantage of or encash the benefit of information in possession made – Not the same as mens rea - Merely because a person was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information at the time go trading in securities, it cannot be held that the transaction becomes the mischief of "insider trading", unless it is established that there was an intention to take advantage of the information. [Paras 28, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42] Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 787

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - If the Resolution Plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or a legal authority, altogether, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the Resolution Plan - If a company is unable to pay its debts, which should include its statutory dues to the Government and/or other authorities and there is no plan which contemplates dissipation of those debts in a phased manner, uniform proportional reduction, the company would necessarily have to be liquidated and its assets sold and distributed in the manner stipulated in Section 53 of the IBC - The Committee of Creditors, which might include financial institutions and other financial creditors, cannot secure their own dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to any Government or Governmental Authority or for that matter, any other dues. (Para 52-54) State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12A - National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016; Rule 11 - Section 12A clearly permits withdrawal of an application under Section 7 IBC that has been admitted - The question of approval of the Committee of Creditors by the requisite percentage of votes, can only arise after the Committee of Creditors is constituted - Before the Committee of Creditors is constituted, there is no bar to withdrawal by the applicant of an application admitted under Section 7 IBC - The settlement cannot be stifled before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors in anticipation of claims against the Corporate Debtor from third persons. The withdrawal of an application for CIRP by the applicant would not prevent any other financial creditor from taking recourse to a proceeding under IBC. The urgency to abide by the timelines for completion of the resolution process is not a reason to stifle the settlement - Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules enables the NCLT to pass orders for the ends of justice including order permitting an applicant for CIRP to withdraw its application and to enable a corporate body to carry on business with ease, free of any impediment. (Para 23-30) Ashok G. Rajani v. Beacon Trusteeship Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 790

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 3(30)- Secured Creditor - A creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited - Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority. (Para 57) State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 30(2) - A resolution plan which does not meet the requirements of Sub Section (2) of Section 30 of the IBC, would be invalid and not binding on the Central Government, any State Government, any statutory or other authority, any financial creditor, or other creditor to whom a debt in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force is owed. Such a resolution plan would not bind the State when there are outstanding statutory dues of a Corporate Debtor. (Para 48) State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 31(2) - If a Resolution Plan is ex facie not in conformity with law and/or the provisions of IBC and/or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, the Resolution would have to be rejected - Even if Section 31(2) is construed to confer discretionary power on the Adjudicating Authority to reject a Resolution Plan, it has to be kept in mind that discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, whimsically or without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances which require discretion to be exercised one way or the other. (Para 50-51) State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 53 - Gujarat Value Added Tax, 2003; Section 48 - Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the IBC- Under Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secured creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act, are to rank equally with other specified debts including debts on account of workman's dues for a period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date. (Para 56) State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - CIRP can be initiated against the Corporate Guarantor without proceeding against the principal borrower - The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the Principal Borrower. (Para 13-16) K. Paramasivam v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - The approval of a resolution in respect of one borrower cannot certainly discharge a co-borrower - If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors - The same amount cannot be realised from both the Corporate Debtors. If the dues are realised in part from one Corporate Debtor, the balance may be realised from the other Corporate Debtor being the co-borrower. However, once the claim of the Financial Creditor is discharged, there can be no question of recovery of the claim twice over. (Para 36-37) Maitreya Doshi v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 789

Interpretation of Statutes - May and Shall - The expression "may", if circumstances so demand can be construed as "Shall". (Para 51) State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743

Interpretation of Statutes - When two or more enactments operating in the same field contain a non obstante clause stating that its provisions will have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, the conflict has to be resolved upon consideration of the purpose and policy underlying the enactments - The rule that a non-obstante clause in a later statute prevails over the non-obstante clause in an earlier statute is not an absolute rule. The question of which provision prevails, would necessarily depend on the object of the enactment and, in particular, the object of giving overriding effect to the enactment or any specific provision thereof. (Para 68-70) Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy v. Banque Cantonale De Geneve, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 793

Judgment and Order - An order is in the given factual scenario. The judgment lays down the principles of law. The scenario is that any order or judgment passed by this Court becomes a reportable exercise to create more volumes of reported cases! This thus has a possibility at times of causing some confusion on the legal principles prevalent. State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 776

Judgment and Order - Judgment or decree btained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity - Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. (Para 21) Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 806

Judicial Service - Appellant had applied to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge (in Bihar) - In the meantime, he also applied for post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in State of Uttar Pradesh - After being successful in the selection process (UP), he was appointed on 16th January 2017 as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in UP - After this, the selection process for recruitment in the Bihar Superior Judicial Services proceeded further. After obtaining the requisite permission from the Allahabad HC, he participated in the selection process conducted by the Patna High Court for the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge. After successfully clearing the selection process, he obtained permission from the Allahabad HC for resigning from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services, so as to join his service as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Bihar. Thus he joined the Bihar Superior Judicial Service with effect from 21st August 2018 - Later the Patna HC terminated his service citing the decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401 - His writ petition challenging this termination dismissed by Patna HC - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: He was neither in services of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services Cadre on the date on which he applied - Nor was he in the services of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Officer Cadre on the date on which he was selected- He had also sought permission from Allahabad HC in this regard - directed reinstation. Sunil Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 775

Juvenile Justice - Plea of juvenility could be raised in any court, at any stage even after the final disposal of the Special Leave Petition- Where the plea of juvenility is raised at a belated stage, often certain medical tests are resorted to forage determination in absence of the documents - While appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he is a juvenile, if two views are possible on the same evidence, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases. The inquiry contemplated is not a roving inquiry. The Court can accept as evidence something more than an affidavit i.e. documents, certificates etc. as evidence in proof of age. A mere opinion by a person as to the accused looking one or two years older than the age claimed by him (as the opinion of the head master in the present case) or the fact that the accused told his age to be more than what he alleges in the case while being arrested by the police officer would not hold much water. It is the documentary evidence placed on record that plays a major role in determining the age of a juvenile in conflict of law. And, it is only in the cases where the documents or certificates placed on record by the accused in support of his claim of juvenility are found to be fabricated or manipulated, that the Court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee need to go for medical test for age determination. Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 757

Labour Law - Supreme Court directs reinstatement of watchman who was retrenched 20 years ago - Labour Court had directed him to be reinstated in 2010- High Court set aside the direction for reinstatement and modified it as a direction for lumpsum payment of 1 lakh compensation- Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was unwarranted in the facts of the case - Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, the denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him - So apart from reinstatement, the SC directs that the workman be paid backwages of from 2020 to 2022. Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kuttch District Panchayat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Delhi); Section 50(a) - Constitutional Validity upheld - The Act is special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only - The Contention re: Gender bias/ women empowerment rejected - There can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783

Legislation - Amendment - All amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature. (Para 23) Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 136 - Article 136 applies only when an application for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to be filed. (Para 20) Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Medical Negligence - Every death in an institutionalized environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care - It would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctors on the line of medical treatment. Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani v. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Consent of woman's family not needed for abortion, doctors cannot impose extra-legal conditions. X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Rape includes "marital rape" for the purposes of MTP Act, wife conceiving out of forced sex can seek abortion. X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - State must create awareness among public about safe sexual practises, ensure access to affordable contraceptives. X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Teenage Pregnancies - Doctor need not disclose identity of minor girl seeking abortion in information given to police. X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Section 18, 19 - MSMED Act does not empower the Facilitation Council to review its own decisions - i) that to begin with, the Facilitation Council should conduct conciliation; (ii) that upon failure of conciliation, the dispute is to be arbitrated either by the Facilitation council itself or by an institution to which it is referred; and (iii) that the decision arrived at thereto, constitutes an award. (Para 14-16) Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Ajanta Press and Mechanical Works, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 769

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Section 8(1) - MSMED Act is not applicable to transactions which took place even before the Act was enacted and that by taking recourse to Section 8(1) of the Act and filing a memorandum, a person cannot assume the legal status conferred under the Act to claim retrospectively - MSMED Act was not intended to provide a gateway for hopelessly time barred claims. (Para 12,17) Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Ajanta Press and Mechanical Works, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 769

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - In the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Mona Baghel v. Sajjan Singh Yadav, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (Karnataka) - Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Election) Rules, 1979 - No legal or normative impediment for the State Election Commission to issue directions requiring disclosure of assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent associates by way of affidavit - Purity of election at all levels, be it election to the Union Parliament or a State Legislature or a Municipal Corporation or a Panchayat is a matter of national importance in which a uniform policy is desirable in the interest of all the States. A hypertechnical view of the omission to incorporate any specific provision in the KMC Election Rules, similar to the 1961 Rules, expressly requiring disclosure of assets, to condone dishonesty and corrupt practice would be against the spirit of the Constitution and public interest. (Para 70-74) S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (Karnataka); Section 39 - The non-disclosure of assets would therefore, also amount to 'undue influence' and consequently to 'corrupt practices' under the KMC Act. (Para 62) S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 141 - The object of notice before the filing of the complaint is not just to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission to make his stance clear so far as his liability under Section 138 of the NI Act is concerned - It is essential for the person to whom statutory notice is issued under Section 138 of the NI Act to give an appropriate reply. The person concerned is expected to clarify his or her stance. If the person concerned has some unimpeachable and incontrovertible material to establish that he or she has no role to play in the affairs of the company/firm, then such material should be highlighted in the reply to the notice as a foundation. (Para 44) S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 772

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 141 - Vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners 'qua' the firm. This would make them liable to face the prosecution but it does not lead to automatic conviction - On the other elements of an offence under Section 138 being satisfied, the burden is on the Board of Directors or the officers in charge of the affairs of the company/partners of a firm to show that they were not liable to be convicted. (Para 47) S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 772

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302 - Conviction of a man accused of killing his own father following a fight under the influence of liquor upheld - Maybe it was under the influence of liquor, but the nature of blows was such that the endeavour was to end the life of the deceased, the father. It was certainly an act in a cruel and brutal manner taking advantage of the situation even if there was no pre-meditation - There is no cause made out for application of Exception 4 of Section 300. Chherturam @ Chainu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 761

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Brutal Murder - Sentencing - In appropriate cases, imposing a fixed term sentence creates a possibility for the convict to 8 re-integrate into society after serving his/her sentence. It strikes a delicate balance between the victims' plea for justice - This fixed term sentence can only be by the High Court or this Court and not by the trial Court - If there is any circumstance favouring the accused such as lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of reformation, young age of the accused, accused not being a menance to the society, no previous criminal record etc., the accused may avoid capital punishment - The crime is important but so is the criminal and hence the Supreme Court in recent past has substituted death penalty with fixed term sentences exceeding 14 years - The approach cannot be the vindictive but lack of appropriate sentence leaves the cry of justice of the society un-addressed apart from the fact that other persons who may have the propensity to carry out the crime feel they will get away with the lighter sentence, in case they are caught. State of Haryana v. Anand Kindoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. (Para 5) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandu @ Nandua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 732

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 and 376 - Rape and Murder of Six-Year-Old Girl - Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death - Acquitted - There are seriously inherent contradictions in the statements made by prosecution witnesses and both the Trial Court and the High Court have overlooked it completely - Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime. Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Penal Code, 1860; Section 411 - In order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. (Para 21-22) Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 746

Pension - Pension, is a lifelong benefit. Denial of pension is a continuing wrong. This Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employee in approaching the Court, which could include financial constraints - Financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee. (Para 27-28) State of Rajasthan v. O.P. Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 785

Personal Law (Goan) – Inventory proceedings – Licitation – Owelty – Portuguese Civil Procedure Code – Chapter XVII (Articles 1369 to 1447) – Articles 1737, 2126, 2127 – Right to property of highest bidder in licitation heritable and not mere personal rights, even if no owelty demanded and paid – Court refused plea for reauction of disputed property – Demise of highest bidder before determination and payment of owelty amount – Held, not ground for setting aside the auction – Owelty only to be paid when demanded – Position and right as a successful bidder, as well as obligation to pay amount heritable by heirs and legal representatives – Amount determined to be paid by successors when called upon to do so. [Paras 18, 20-24] Ethel Lourdes D'Souza Lobo v. Lucio Neville Jude De Souza, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 795

Pleadings - Misquoting or non-quoting of a provision by itself will not make an order bad so long as the relevant enabling provision is in existence and it was correctly applied though without specifically mentioning it. (Para 25) Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Practice and Procedure - Even after more than three months from pronouncement of the order by the High Court, the reasons are not forthcoming and are not available with either of the parties - A party to the litigation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for availability of the reasons for the order of the Court - Referred to Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 and State of Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596 - Guidelines and observations therein remain fundamental to the course of dispensation of justice in any cause before the Court and the principle set out therein need to be applied with necessary variation, as may be necessary in the given fact situation of any particular case. K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 803

Practice and Procedure - Growing tendency of indirectly seeking review of the orders by filing applications either seeking modification or clarification of the orders - A total abuse of process of law - The valuable time of Court is spent in deciding such applications which time would otherwise be utilized for attending litigations of the litigants who are waiting in the corridors of justice for decades together - 10 Lakhs costs imposed on each applicants. (Para 4-6) Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 771

Practice and Procedure - Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant. We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralize the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice. Anupam Ghosh v. Faiz Mohammed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 751

Precedent - A judgment cannot be interpreted and applied to fact situations by reading it as a statute. One cannot pick up a word or sentence from a judgment to construe that it is the ratio decidendi on the relevant aspects of the case. (Para 7) Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 799

Precedent - A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. The judgment has to be construed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which the judgment has been rendered. Words, phrases and sentences in a judgment, cannot be read out of context. Nor is a judgment to be read and interpreted in the manner of a statute. It is only the law as interpreted by Court in an earlier judgment, which constitutes a binding precedent, and not everything that the Judges say. (Para 41) S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Precedents - A judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority-In view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority. (Para 19) Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 778

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(e) - it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term "known sources of income" would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. It is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the accused to give satisfactory explanation. (Para 80) State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(e) - Prosecution not required to conduct an open ended or rowing enquiry or investigation to find out all alleged/claimed known sources of income of an accused who is investigated under the PC Act, 1988. The prosecution can rely upon the information furnished by the accused to the authorities under law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. No further investigation is required by the prosecution to find out the known sources of income of the accused public servant. As noticed above, the first part of the explanation refers to income received from legal/lawful sources. (Para 41) State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 - Detention - If there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 20) Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1986; Section 37 - If detenue was ordered to be released on bail despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, then the same is suggestive that the Court concerned might not have found any prima facie case against him. (Para 23) Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813

Preventive Detention - It emerges that the requisite subjective satisfaction, the formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influence his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order. (Para 26) Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813

Preventive Detention - The preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and the normal methods open to a person charged with commission of any offence to disprove the charge or to prove his innocence at the trial are not available to the person preventively detained and, therefore, in prevention detention jurisprudence whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance and must be strictly adhered to. (Para 28) Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813

Public Employment - Suppression of criminal proceedings - Principles to be applied - a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials–more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide. f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority? g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable? (Para 69) Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Remission - Premature Release - Supreme Court says due consideration of remission policy must be given to all eligible prisoners - Issues slew of directions to UP Govt - Holds that application by eligible prisoner must not be insisted- Benefit of policy which is more beneficial to the prisoner must by given. Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 754

Representation of People Act, 1950 - Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - The right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a right conferred by a statute - The name of a candidate to be proposed while filling the nomination form. Therefore, an individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act. Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 758

Reserve Bank of India - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Disclosure of defaulters list, inspection reports etc in relation to banks - Right to Privacy- Supreme Court expresses prima facie doubts about its 2015 judgment in the case Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N. Mistry which had held that the Reserve Bank of India was obliged to disclose defaulters list, inspection reports, annual statements etc., related to banks under the Right to Information Act - Says the judgment did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy. HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811

Right to Privacy - In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry, the RBI is entitled to issue directions to the petitioners/Banks to disclose information even with regard to the individual customers of the Bank. In effect, it may adversely affect the individuals' fundamental right to privacy. (Para 39) HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811

SEBI circular on standardisation of procedure for debenture trustees has retroactive application. Securities and Exchange Board Of India v. Rajkumar Nagpal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 738

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - The powers exercisable by CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets - Once all the requirements under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner- At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal. (Para 5.2) Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 799

Service Law - Leave encashment is part of salary. (Para 18) Jagdish Prasad Saini v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 801

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for injunction simplicitor on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell - The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get the relief by clever drafting - The plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession. (Para 6) Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 800

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance - The court should look at all the relevant circumstances including the time limit(s) specified in the agreement and determine whether its discretion to grant specific performance should be exercised - While exercising its discretion, the court should bear in mind that when the parties prescribe certain time limit(s) for taking steps by one or the other party, it must have some significance and that the said time limit(s) cannot be ignored altogether on the ground that time is not the essence of the contract. (Para 12) Kolli Satyanarayana v. Valuripalli Kesava Rao Chowdary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 807

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance - When suit property was jointly owned by the defendant along with his wife and three sons, an effective decree could not have been passed affecting the rights of the defendant's wife and three sons without impleading them. (Para 19) Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 12 - A Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party. (Para 16) Raman (D) v. R. Natarajan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 760

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 21 - Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 - After 2018 amendment, damages are now available only in addition to specific performance and not in lieu thereof. (Para 59) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 21 (5) - Sub-section (5) stipulates that compensation cannot be awarded under the section unless the Plaintiff has claimed such compensation in the plaint. This provision is mandatory. (Para 55) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 21, 22 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - The provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would apply to a specific performance suit and a plaintiff who has earlier failed to incorporate the reliefs for compensation or who has incorporated the reliefs for compensation but seeks amendment in the same, could seek the permission of the court to introduce these reliefs by way of amendment. (Para 66) Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Sports Law - Board of Control of Cricket in India - Supreme Court approves amendments proposed to the Constitution of BCCI. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 770

Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 - It is necessary for the Central Government, in consultation with the National Council, to devise a policy framework in terms of which reasonable accommodation can be provided for transgender persons in seeking recourse to avenues of employment in establishments covered by the provisions of the 2019 Act.The provisions of the 2019 Act need to be implemented in letter and spirit by formulating appropriate policies. The Union Government must take the lead in this behalf and provide clear guidance and enforceable standards to all other entities, including, those of the Union Government, State Governments and establishments governed by the 2019 Act. (Para 8) Shanavi P onnusamy v. Ministry of Civil Aviation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 779

Transgender Rights - Transgender persons routinely face multiple forms of oppression, social exclusion and discrimination, especially in the field of healthcare, employment and education. Gender diverse persons, including transgender persons, continue to face barriers in accessing equal employment opportunities, especially in the formal sector, due to the operation of gender stereotypes. Gender stereotypes in the workplace disproportionately impact transgender persons for not subscribing to societal norms about appropriate 'feminine' and 'masculine' appearances and mannerisms. (Para 7) Shanavi P onnusamy v. Ministry of Civil Aviation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 779

Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (Rajasthan); Rule 5 (viii) - The condition in clause (viii) of Rule 5 i.e., carry forward of balance privilege leave, is barred and requiring employees to seek encashment from their previous employer, i.e., aided institutions, is an arbitrary and unconscionable condition, which cannot be enforced. (Para 20) Jagdish Prasad Saini v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 801

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739
2. Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814
3. Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805
4. Anupam Ghosh v. Faiz Mohammed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 751
5. Ashok G. Rajani v. Beacon Trusteeship Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 790
6. Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Developers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747
7. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Ajanta Press and Mechanical Works, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 769
8. Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 799
9. Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 800
10. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Tata Communications Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 792
11. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 770
12. Chherturam @ Chainu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 761
13. Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804
14. Civil Hospital v. Manjit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 781
15. D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 791
16. Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani v. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 753
17. Director of Teacher's Training Research Education v. OM Jessymol, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 759
18. Essar House Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 765
19. Ethel Lourdes D'Souza Lobo v. Lucio Neville Jude De Souza, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 795
20. G.N.R. Babu @ S.N. Babu v. Dr. B.C. Muthappa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 748
21. Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 771
22. Gyanendra Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 808
23. Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783
24. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 782
25. HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811
26. In Re: Framing Guidelines regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be considered while imposing Death Sentences, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 777
27. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 744
28. Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 733
29. Jagdish Prasad Saini v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 801
30. Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kuttch District Panchayat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 797
31. Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 794
32. K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 803
33. K. Paramasivam v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 742
34. Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 763
35. Kolli Satyanarayana v. Valuripalli Kesava Rao Chowdary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 807
36. Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729
37. M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 737
38. Mahadeo v. Sovan Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 730
39. Maitreya Doshi v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 789
40. Mohammed Latif Magrey v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 756
41. Mohd Shakir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 727
42. Mona Baghel v. Sajjan Singh Yadav, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734
43. Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802
44. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 728
45. Munikrishna @ Krishna v. State by UIsoor PS, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 812
46. Navika Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 796
47. Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy v. Banque Cantonale De Geneve, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 793
48. P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 749
49. Peacock Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 740
50. Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768
51. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 750
52. Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 806
53. Raman (D) v. R. Natarajan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 760
54. Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 754
55. S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766
56. S. Venkatesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 752
57. S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 772
58. Sahebrao Arjun Hon v. Raosaheb Kashinath Hon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 745
59. Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798
60. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 787
61. Securities and Exchange Board Of India v. Rajkumar Nagpal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 738
62. Selvakumar v. Manjula, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 786
63. Shanavi P onnusamy v. Ministry of Civil Aviation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 779
64. Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 746
65. Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (D), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 762
66. Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 774
67. Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 788
68. State of Haryana v. Anand Kindoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 780
69. State of Jharkhand v. Salauddin Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 755
70. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandu @ Nandua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 732
71. State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 784
72. State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 776
73. State of Rajasthan v. O.P. Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 785
74. State of Rajasthan v. Phool Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735
75. State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767
76. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prabhat Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736
77. State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743
78. State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741
79. Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773
80. Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 810
81. Sunil Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 775
82. Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813
83. Tarak Dash Mukharjee v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731
84. Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 778
85. Tulsi Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 764
86. Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 757
87. Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 758
88. X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809