SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Adultery

"It is not as if this court approved of adultery": Supreme Court clarifies 'Joseph Shine' judgment that declared Section 497 IPC unconstitutional. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Armed Forces Personnel liable to face disciplinary action for adultery despite striking down of Section 497 IPC. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Adultery - Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 - It is not as if this Court approved of adultery. This Court has found that adultery may be a moral wrong (per Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra). This Court has also held that it will continue to be a ground for securing dissolution of marriage. It has also been described as a civil wrong. (Para 23) Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Bail

The Supreme Court expresses anguish at Trial Courts acting in violation of its judgments on bail & remand. Chandmal v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Bail & Remand: Supreme Court expresses anguish at trial courts acting in violation of its judgments in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh LL 2021 SC 391 & Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 - We fail to understand why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial Courts are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex Court unnecessarily. Chandmal v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Virtual Hearing - We would normally expect that even in the District Courts, in the Covid period, arrangements would have been made for virtual hearing. It is not as if the virtual method of appearing before the Court has to be abandoned as this is an alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts. Chandmal v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Interim victim compensation cannot be imposed as a condition for bail. Talat Sanvi v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 83

If bail bonds are not furnished within one month, Trial Courts may consider suo motu relaxing conditions. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 76

Supreme Court issues directions to avoid delay in release of prisoners after getting bail. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 76

Bar Council

Supreme Court Constitution Bench upholds the validity of All India Bar Examination - Recongizes the right of Bar Council of India to prescribe such a condition for practice - Overrules decision in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176, in which the top court had held that no condition, other than those enumerated in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, could be imposed on a person wishing to practise law-Court however clarifies that the setting aside of the judgment in V. Sudeer is in no manner an imprimatur to mandating the requirement of pre-enrolment training. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

All India Bar Examination - It has to be left to the Bar Council of India as to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be held – pre or post enrolment. (Para 35) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

All India Bar Examination - Strictly follow the schedule of conducting AIBE twice a year as otherwise the students with law degrees would be left idling their time. (Para 36) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

All India Bar Examination - Supreme Court accepts the suggestion of amicus curiae that students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible to pursue the final semester of the final year course of law, on production of proof of the same, could be allowed to take the All India Bar Examination - During the interrugnum between passing the university and enrolment, any graduate with the degree who is yet to appear for the Bar examination or get enrolled under the said Act should be able to do all the tasks allied to the legal profession other than the function of acting or pleading before the courts. (Para 38) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

All India Bar Examination - BCI may lay down a rule that people who were in non-legal jobs for a certain number of years should qualify AIBE to rejoin legal profession. (Para 42) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Bar Council of India - Ensure enrolment fee does not become oppressive- different State Bar Councils are charging different fees for enrolment. This is something which needs the attention of the Bar Council of India, which is not devoid of the powers to see that a uniform pattern is observed and the fee does not become oppressive at the threshold of young students joining the Bar. (Para 44) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Building

The Supreme Court upholds rule requiring builders to reserve open spaces in developed plots. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Building Rules - Supreme Court upheld a rule which mandated that builders should reserve open spaces in the plots developed by them- Regulation 19 of Development Control Rules for the Chennai Metropolitan Area. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Building Rules - Mandate to reserve 10% open space area does not violate Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution- It does not amount to compulsory acquisition. (Para 51, 66, 137,148, 154) Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Building Rules - Open Spaces - Areas covered by the Open Space Regulations cannot be diverted for any other purpose - The respondents (local authorities) are duty-bound to ensure that the area set apart as OSR is stringently utilised only for the purpose in the Rule/Regulation. We direct that no area meant for OSR shall be utilised as dumping yards or any other purpose other than as OSR. (Para 178) Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105

CCTV

Comply with directions to install CCTVs in police stations: Supreme Court gives warning to Centre, States. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 134

Central Excise

Supreme Court upholds Sec 9D Central Excise & Salt Act; Asks cigarette company to pay Rs 5 lakh cost for cancer affected children. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Cheque

Cheque cases can be transferred from one state to another invoking Section 406 Cr.P.C. Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Citizenship

The Supreme Court sets aside the ex-parte order of the Foreigners Tribunal which declared a woman non-indian. Rashida Begum @ Rashida Khatun v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 85

Centre's decision to bar OCI (Overseas Citizens of India) students from general seats will apply to only those who register as OCIs after 04.03.2021. Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Civil Law

Section 24 CPC power can be invoked by the common High Court for two or more states even for inter state transfer of suits. Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146

CPC Order 41 Rule 23A - Appellate Court can't remand suit for de novo trial merely because a particular evidence has not been adduced. Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Remand order prolongs & delays litigation: Supreme Court explains scope of appellate court's power to remand. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Ouster of civil court's jurisdiction won't have retrospective effect to annul a decree validly passed by civil court. Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 109

It is settled law that ouster of jurisdiction of civil court can be expressed or implied, but it cannot have retrospective effect annulling a decree validly passed by the civil court. Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 109

Order XXI Rule 84 CPC - Deposit of 25% of amount by auction purchaser mandatory; balance amount to be paid within fifteen days. Gas Point Petroleum India Ltd. v. Rajendra Marothi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 89

Suit for recovery of possession - In a case where the owner of the land filed suit for recovery of possession of his land from the encroacher and once he establishes his title, merely because some structures are erected by the opposite party ignoring the objection, that too without any bona fide belief, denying the relief of recovery of possession would tantamount to allowing a trespasser/encroacher to purchase another man’s property against that man’s will. (Para 21) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Company Law

Company Secretary's Liability: Supreme Court says compliance officer should ensure compliance with SEBI's buyback regulations. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101

Supreme Court sets aside SAT order absolving Company Secretary of liability relating to violations of buyback regulations- says Compliance Officer has to ensure compliance- Asks SAT to reexamine liability. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101

Constitution

'Service as Adhoc Judges can't be considered for elevation as HC Judges': Supreme Court rejects plea of judicial officers from AP. C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Minority school not entitled to state grant towards salary for employee retained beyond retirement age. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) is a 'State' u/Article 12. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115

High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, they are constitutional courts. Shankar Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Article 170 of Constitution not applicable to legislatures of union territories: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

While upholding J&K delimitation, the Supreme Court rejects comparisons with Telangana/AP & North Eastern states. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Parliament can convert existing state into a union territory: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Right to Die: Supreme Court makes it easier for persons to opt for passive euthanasia; Simplifies 2018 guidelines on living will/advance directive. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Excommunication among dawoodi bohras: Supreme Court refers to the nine-judge sabarimala bench. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97

'Excommunication is subject to constitutional morality, results in civil death': Supreme Court doubts precedent upholding right to excommunicate. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Supreme Court Constitution Bench doubts the correctness of the decision in Sardar Syedna Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, 1962 Suppl (2) SCR 496 which struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Justice Victoria Gowri's appointment: Supreme Court rejects argument that collegium was not aware of facts; says no judicial review over suitability. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging the appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri as judge of the Madras High Court - says suitability cannot be a subject matter of judicial review - collegium recommendation cannot be examined on the judicial side. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Supreme Court invalidates GAIL's condition imposed on IPCL, Says writ jurisdiction can be applied when contractual terms are arbitrary. Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Consumer

Flat owners don't forfeit the right to claim amenities promised by builder by taking possession of apartments. Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Flat owners do not forfeit the right to claim amenities promised by the developer by taking possession of the apartments- Supreme Court disapproves of NCDRC order dismissing homebuyers' claim on the ground that knowingly purchased the apartments. Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Supreme Court's comments on flat-owners' plight - Now-a-days, flat owners seldom purchase flats with liquid cash. Flats are purchased on the basis of finances being advanced by banks and other financial institutions. Once a flat is booked and the prospective flat owner enters into an agreement for loan, instalments fall due to be paid to clear the debt irrespective of whether the flat is ready for being delivered possession. The usual delays that are associated with construction activities result in undue anxiety, stress, and harassment for which many a prospective flat owner, it is common knowledge, even without the project/flat being wholly complete is left with no other option but to take possession. Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Rs. 2 Crore compensation for bad haircut excessive: Supreme Court asks NCDRC to decide model's claim afresh. ITC Ltd. v. Aashna Roy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 87

Court Deposit

The Supreme Court directs all courts/tribunals to mandatorily deposit amounts deposited by parties with registry in a bank/financial institution. K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68

Courts / Tribunals should mandatorily deposit amounts deposited by litigants with the Registry or Office in a bank account - Supreme Court issues directions - All courts and judicial forums should frame guidelines in cases where amounts are deposited with the office / registry of the court / tribunal, that such amounts should mandatorily be deposited in a bank or some financial institution, to ensure that no loss is caused in the future - These guidelines should be embodied in the form of appropriate rules, or regulations of each court, tribunal, commission, authority, agency, etc. exercising adjudicatory power. (Para 35) K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68

Contempt

When the highest court of the country has passed an order, the collector cannot await permission to implement it. Junagadh Municipal Corporation v. Adarsh Cooperative Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Criminal Law

State should not be arbitrary in allowing premature release; policy must be applied equally to all. Rajkumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Transfer of criminal case from one state to another implicitly reflect on the credibility of the State Judiciary & Prosecution Agency. Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 141

'Mere framing of charges no bar to order further investigation; Victim has fundamental right of fair investigation'. Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Section 319 Cr.P.C.: Supreme Court reiterates procedural safeguards to prevent misuse of power to summon additional accused. Juhru v. Karim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 128

Criminal proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed if they have genuinely settled matrimonial disputes. Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74

CRZ Notification

CRZ Notification 2011: Storage facility for edible oil not allowed outside port area; Supreme Court affirms quashing of post-facto clearance. K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 - Storage facility for edible oil not allowed outside port areas- the word ‘within’ used for CRZ-I and ‘in’ used for CRZ-II in the CRZ Notification of 2011 cannot be interpreted to include what is outside the port areas-The maker of the notification has not even contemplated the activities in question in a ‘port area’. We must here elucidate and observe that if the contention is to be upheld that a storage tank can be permitted outside the port limits, it will introduce chaos. The question would arise as to up to what distance from the port area it would be considered as the ‘in the port area’. The 2011 Notification cannot receive an interpretation which would leave matters of moment to be afflicted with the vice of uncertainty. This is apart from the importance of avoiding an interpretation which seemingly allows free play in the joints to the Administrator but, atthe same time, vest an arbitrary power in him. (Para 58) K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Delay

Being short of funds to pay court fees is not a sufficient reason to condone delay to file an appeal. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Delimitation

Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation - There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K undertaken by the Delimitation Commission - there is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020 - There is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed - findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. We are aware that the issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending - Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving our imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 31 - 46) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Domestic Violence

Courts should not impose onerous conditions on complainants under Domestic Violence Act. Bhawna v. Bhay Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148

DNA Test

Children's right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously is part of their privacy right: Supreme Court on power to order 'DNA Test'. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 122

E-Filing

Ensure e-filing of all revenue appeals before HCs and Tribunals: Supreme Court directs centre. CCE and ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 106

Election

Municipal Corporation of Delhi mayor polls: Nominated members can't vote, holds Supreme Court; Election to be notified in 24 hours. Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119

'For Parliament to decide whether to allow candidates to contest from two seats' : Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Sec 33(7) RP Act. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 84

Environment

NGT has powers to execute its orders as decrees of Civil Court. Sushil Raghav v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 140

The Supreme Court disapproves of building zoos inside tiger reserves; stops constructions within core areas of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Environment Protection - Supreme Court disapproves of constructing zoos and enclosures within national parks - Prima facie, we do not appreciate the necessity of having a zoo inside the tiger reserves or national parks. The concept of protecting these is to permit animals to reside in their natural environs and not artificial environs. We, therefore, also call upon the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to explain the rationale behind permitting such safaris within tiger reserves and national parks. Until further orders, the authorities are restrained from making any constructions within the core areas of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Human life is equally important as protection of the environment; Projects necessary for country's economic development can't be stalled. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102

The contest between development and environmental concerns is ever ongoing. While there is no doubt that ecology and environment need to be protected for the future generations, at the same time, development projects cannot be stalled, which are necessary not only for the economic development of the country, but at times for the safety of the citizens as well. No doubt that the protection of environment and ecology are important. However, at the same time, it cannot be denied that human life is also equally important. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102

Taj Trapezium matter: Supreme Court allows more flights to agra, removes restriction on increasing air traffic. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Equal Pay for Equal Work

The doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. (Para 14) Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129

It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. (Para 14) Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Equity

Equity will follow the law and it would tilt in favour of law and further that to claim equity the party must explain previous conduct. (Para 14) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Estoppel and Acquiescence

In the case of acquiescence the representations are to be inferred from silence, but mere silence, mere inaction could not be construed to be a representation and in order to be a representation it must be inaction or silence in circumstances which require a duty to speak and therefore, amounting to fraud or deception - In the absence of any misrepresentation by an act or omission, the mere fact after making objection the plaintiff took some reasonable time to approach the Court for recovery of possession cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be a reason to deny him the relief him of recovery of possession of the encroached land on his establishing his title over it. (Para 18-21) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Evidence Law

'It's quality & not quantity of witnesses which matters': Supreme Court relies on solitary eyewitness testimony to affirm sentence. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Burden of proof on accused to prove plea of insanity is one of preponderance of probability. Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Hate Speech

Supreme Court directs videography of Sakal Hindu Samaj meet; Asks police to take preventive action if necessary to prevent hate speech. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Apprehension of Hate Speech - Supreme Court issues directions regarding meeting proposed by Sakal Hindu Samaj - Records undertaking of State of Maharashtra that permission will be granted to the meeting only subject to condition that no hate speech will be made - Directs videography of the meeting by the Police and make the video available to the Court - Directs police to invoke the powers under Section 151 CrPC if occasion arises. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Insurance

Insurance coverage for accidental death - proximate cause necessary; Supreme Court denies claim for sunstroke death during election duty. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Interpretation of Statutes

An interpretation of the law that seeks to address the mischief, that is consistent with the Constitution and promotes constitutional objectives and that which responds to the needs of the nation must be adopted. (Para 46) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146

A general law cannot defeat the provisions of a special law to the extent to which they are in conflict; else, an effort has to be made at reconciling the two provisions by homogenous reading. (Para 37) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146

Judicial Review

The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party. (Para 17) Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Judicial Service

Judicial officer suppresses criminal case in application form; Supreme Court upholds termination, says subsequent closure of case irrelevant. Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Judicial Service - Supreme Court upholds the termination of services of a judicial officer for not disclosing pendency of criminal case at the time of making application- Court notes that subsequent closure of the criminal case is immaterial when the candidate has made a dishonest suppression - The post which was applied by the appellant was a vey important post of judicial officer and therefore, it was expected of a person who applied for the judicial officer to disclose the true and correct facts and give full particulars as asked in the application form. If in the application form itself, she has not stated the true and correct facts and suppressed the material facts, what further things can be expected from her after she was appointed as a judicial office. (Para 6) Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Land Law

'Land acquisition compensation can't be different based on the nature of ownership': Supreme Court strikes down noida authority's classification. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Supreme Court stuck down the classification made by the Greater NOIDA Authority between Pushtaini and Gair-Pushtaini Landholders for the purpose of granting compensation upon acquisition. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land Acquisition - When the purpose of the acquisition of the land is for the benefit of the public at large, then the nature of the owner of the said land is inconsequential to the purpose. If such a classification on the basis of the nature of owner is allowed, then on the same grounds, there might be a possibility of future classifications where power holding members of the society may get away with a larger compensation, and the marginalized may get lesser compensation. (Para 59) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land Acquisition - The Land Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners. The classification made between Pushtaini landowners and Gair-pushtaini landowners, on the basis of the reasoning mentioned above, is violative of the law laid down in the Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, (1973) 1 SCC 500 and Article 14 of the Constitution. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist without the State Govt. permission. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Lokayukta

Supreme Court restores Odisha Lokayukta's probe order against Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi MLA. Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 135

Marriage

Supreme Court dismisses plea to raise age of marriage for women as 21 years, says it's for parliament to decide. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 143

Conviction u/s 498A IPC not sustainable when marriage is found to be null & void. P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Medical

MBBS: Supreme Court imposes Rs 2.5 crores penalty on medical college for illegal admissions; protects students. National Medical Commission v. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Money Laundering

Section 45 PMLA conditions applicable to anticipatory bail applications for money laundering offence. Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Jurisdiction of PMLA Court to try money laundering offence not limited to the place where proceeds of crime come into possession of the accused. Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Supreme Court dismisses Rana Ayyub's plea challenging jurisdiction of ghaziabad court to try PMLA case against her. Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Trial of scheduled offence should take place in special court which has taken cognizance of offence of Money-Laundering. Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Motor Vehicle

License necessary to operate as cab aggregator: Supreme Court asks uber to apply for license from Maharashtra Govt. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Motor Vehicles Act | Aggregators License - States may keep in mind centre's guidelines while framing rules. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100

Murder Trial

Murder Trial - Once prosecution establishes 'last seen theory', the accused is bound to give explanations. Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Negotiable Instruments

Section 138 NI Act | Conviction cannot be confirmed overriding agreement between parties to compound the offence. B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75

Penal Law

Supreme Court upholds life sentence for mother who killed her 5-year old child. Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 132

To consider premature release of convict, State Policy prevailing on the date of conviction is relevant. Hitesh v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 72

Political Party

Supreme Court affirms Madras HC order allowing EPS to continue as AIADMK interim general secretary, dismisses OPS's challenge. Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugham, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133

AIADMK Rift - Supreme Court affirms Madras HC division bench order allowing Edappadi Palaniswamy to continue as interim general secretary of AIADMK- the approach of the learned Single Judge while examining the questions of balance of convenience and irreparable injury had been from an altogether wrong angle- the learned Single Judge in the present matter did not examine the questions relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury in the correct perspective and particularly failed to weigh the competing possibilities and risk of injustice if ultimately the decision of main matter would run counter to the course being adopted and suggested in the order granting temporary injunction in the manner and form it was being granted. Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugham, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133

Power of Attorney

General power of attorney holder can sub-delegate his powers if there is a specific clause permitting sub-delegation. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Power of Attorney - The law is settled that though the general power of attorney holder cannot delegate his powers to another person but the same can be delegated when there is a specific clause permitting sub-delegation. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Power of Attorney - Power of Attorney holder can give evidence about facts of which he has knowledge. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Practice and Procedure

When a party wants to challenge the constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail the grounds on which the validity of the statute is sought to be challenged. In absence of the specific pleadings to that effect, Court cannot go into the issue of the validity of statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the law made by the Legislature unless it is specifically challenged by incorporating specific grounds of challenge in the pleadings. The reason is that there is always a presumption of the constitutionality of laws. The burden is always on the person alleging unconstitutionality to prove it. For that purpose, the challenge has to be specifically pleaded by setting out the specific grounds on which the challenge is made. A Constitutional Court cannot casually interfere with legislation made by a competent Legislature only by drawing an inference from the pleadings that the challenge to the validity is implicit. The State gets a proper opportunity to defend the legislation only if the State is made aware of the grounds on which the legislation is sought to be challenged. (Para 14) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Property

Transfer of Property Act - Encroacher cannot claim benefit of Section 51. Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Re-Evaluation

Assessment of descriptive answers is subjective; Courts should not enter that arena: Supreme Court disapproves of HC ordering re-evaluation. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Re-evaluation of answer sheets - Supreme Court disapproves of High Court ordering re-evaluation of answer sheets when there was no statutory provisions - Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator - However, having regard to peculiar facts, SC refuses to interfere with the relief granted by the HC to the student, but does not endorse the process. (Para 13) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Remission

Court directs State to consider application in accordance with the policy which held the field on the date of the conviction. Hitesh v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 72

Review

The provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed. (Para 15) Pancham Lal Pandey v. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Service Law

Communicating annual confidential report to employee without sufficient time to challenge it same as non-communication of report. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Promotion in Services – Communicating grade awarded in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) – Uncommunicated ACR not to be considered for consideration of promotion – Whether ACR communicated with sufficient time to make representation against it be considered? – Held, ACR communicated one day before promotion committee was convened ought not to be considered since employee had 15 days’ time to make a representation against it – Further held, either the DPC could have been postponed or the ACR ought not to have been considered and the same ought to have been treated as uncommunicated ACR – Writ petition allowed. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Reducing cut-off marks after publication of results only to provide employment to a particular category violates Article 14. Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Selection Process - Reduction in cut-off marks to accommodate candidates whose seats were reserved due to horizontal reservation – Difference between qualification for making an application and eligibility criteria determined after examination is conducted – Present matter dealt with not the qualification for making an application, but the eligibility of candidates determined on the basis of cut-off marks – Held, eligibility determined after examination is conducted could not be disturbed. (Para 22) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Selection Process - Whether advertisement made pursuant to notification could be changed – No amendment duly introduced – Modification on the advice of state government – An advertisement made pursuant to a notification would bind the parties – Had all the trappings of a statutory prescription unless it became contrary to either a rule or an act – Held, any change could only be introduced by way of an amendment and nothing else. (Para 23) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Right of candidate to be considered in accordance with law – No vested right to advertised post Candidates had right to be considered for appointment to the post in accordance with law – Held, a law which enabled a candidate to get a post could not be changed to facilitate another group of persons, since the candidate acquired a vested right to be considered in accordance with law. (Para 24) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Power of state government and selection committee to reduce cut-off marks after publication of results – Held, advertisement did not confer unbridled power either on state government or on selection committee to modify the selection process by reducing the qualifying marks after the results had already been published – Appeal allowed. (Para 26) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Different pay scale for seemingly similar posts are justifiable if there is a reasonable classification. Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Employee can't seek alteration of date of birth at fag end of career. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124

Any request for alternation of date of birth cannot be made after a long delay and especially towards the end of the career of an employee - Employees cannot wake up from their slumber after a long time and seek alteration of date of birth towards the fag end of their career. Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124

Gratuity-Death- cum-retirement gratuity is the benevolent scheme - Supreme Court imposes Rs 50,000 cost on the State of UP for challenging gratuity granted to widow of a deceased employee. State of U.P. v. Priyanka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 95

Regularisation can't be claimed if appointment was not by a competent authority & there's no sanctioned post. Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91

VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired upon achieving the age of superannuation - They cannot claim parity with those who worked continuously, discharged their functions, and thereafter superannuated. VRS employees chose to opt and leave the service of the corporation; they found the VRS offer beneficial to them. (Para 39) Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81

Pay revision is a matters falling within the domain of executive policy making-What is within the domain of the court, is to examine the impact of such fixation and whether it results in discrimination. (Para 27) Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

IIT-Kanpur caste discrimination complaint: Supreme Court favours conciliation, suggests talks between dalit faculty & his colleagues. Subrahmanyam Saderla v. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 126

State Policy

Change of Govt. stand after change in power - The Courts are not concerned with the stand taken by the State at the relevant time and now. Suffice it to say that at the relevant time when the State police agency took a particular stand, accused No. 13 was in power and sitting Minister - The endeavor of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only. (Para 13) Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Tax

'Charitable purpose' not limited to 'free medical relief': Supreme Court on Kerala Building Tax exemption; Overrules 2014 Judgment. Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Tax authorities should maintain discipline to follow decisions of higher authorities. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70

Temporary Injunction

Grant of Temporary Injunction - Principles and precedents discussed. (Para 21) Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugham, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133

Virtual Hearing

'Use Technology to facilitate virtual hearings, don't waste money spent on technical upgradation': Supreme Court to all Courts, Tribunals. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Supreme Court asks all courts, tribunals to facilitate virtual hearings too, by utilizing money spent on technical upgradation - in the COVID times, considerable monies have been spent on upgrading the technical infrastructure to facilitate hearing through the virtual mode- Apparently, in the current budget of the Government of India also large allocation has been made for technical upgradation of the judicial institutions. We at times are informed that there is some problems in Tribunals and some High Courts of the technical infrastructure being not used or dismantled. We would like to make it clear that monies spent on these upgradation cannot be put to a loss and we expect all Judicial Forums, Tribunals, District Courts and High Courts to utilize the technical infrastructure which is available to the best extent possible which would facilitate lawyers attending proceedings either physically or virtually depending on their convenience. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Z+ Security

Highest Z+ security should be provided to mukesh ambani & family throughout India & abroad; cost to be borne by Ambanis. Union of India v. Bikash Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 147

Security for Mukesh Ambani and Family - Supreme Court directed that the Highest Z+ Security Cover provided to billionaire businessman Mukesh Ambani and his family is not restricted to Mumbai, but be made available across India and also when they are traveling abroad. The cost, as per the order of the Supreme Court, is to be borne by the Ambanis - when Mukesh Ambani and his family are within India, State of Maharashtra and the Ministry of Home Affairs are to ensure their security. When they are traveling abroad, the Ministry of Home Affairs would ensure the same. Union of India v. Bikash Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 147

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Advocates Act 1961 - No provisions prohibit BCI from prescribing pre-enrolment exam- Neither these provisions, nor the role of the universities to impart legal education, in any way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with the standard of persons who want to obtain a license to practice law as a profession. (Para 20) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Advocates Act 1961 - Quality of lawyers is an important aspect and part of administration of justice and access to justice. Half baked lawyers serve no purpose. It is this quality control, which has been the endeavour of all the efforts made over a period of time. (Para 19) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Advocates Act 1961 - The objective of the legislature while giving wide powers to the Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the Advocates Act which gives it the power to prescribe rules, read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (3) of Section 24, which gives it the power to prescribe norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an advocate under the rules of the Bar Council of India, leads us to the conclusion that these are adequate powers with the Bar Council of India under the said act to provide for such norms and rules. We are, therefore, of the view that while considering the question referred to us, the only conclusion is that the interdict placed by the judgement of this court in V. Sudeer on the powers of the Bar Council of India cannot be sustained and we cannot hold that this decision laid down the correct position of law. The effect of the view expressed by us would be that it is left to the Bar Council of India as to at what stage, the All-India Bar Examination will be held, that is, pre-enrolment, or post-enrolment. (Para 33) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Army Act, 1950; Sections 45 and 63 - Miscellanious application filed by UoI seeking clarification of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39) - This Court was neither called upon nor has it ventured to pronounce on the effect of Sections 45 and 63 of the 1950 Act as also the corresponding provisions in other Acts or any other provisions of the Acts. We only make this position clear. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Building Tax Act 1975 (Kerala); Explanation to Section 3(1) - 'Charitable purpose' not limited to 'free medical relief'- The Explanation goes to indicate that ‘charitable purposes’ includes and is, therefore, not confined to the relief of the poor and free medical relief. Consequently, the decision in SH Medical Centre Hospital vs State Of Kerala & Ors (2014) 11 SCC 381 to the extent of the interpretation which is placed on the Explanation to Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 does not correctly reflect the position in law which is clarified above. The decision in SH Medical Centre Hospital is, therefore, overruled to the above extent. (Para 10) Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Building Tax Act 1975 (Kerala); Explanation to Section 3(1) - Section 3(1)(b) provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to buildings which are used ‘principally’ for specific purposes, including among them, ‘charitable purposes’. The expression “principally” conveys the meaning of that which is the dominant purpose. The interpretation placed by the two-Judge Bench on the expression “principally used for charitable purposes” does not call for interference in view of the statutory language used in Section 3(1). Principal use refers to the dominant substantive use as distinguished from an ancillary use. (Para 9) Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - Supreme Court endorses Delhi High Court judgment upholding Section 9D - Pulls up cigarette company for protracting proceedings - Asks it to pay Rs 5 lakh cost to any charitable organisation involved in providing help, assistance and relief to children suffering from cancer. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Citizenship Act, 1955 - Assam NRC - Section 6A - Supreme Court sets aside ex-parte order of a Foreigners Tribunal which declared a woman to be not Indian citizen - Directs that the matter be considered on merits afresh with opportunity to the appellant furnish materials. Rashida Begum @ Rashida Khatun v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 85

Citizenship Act, 1955; Section 7B - Rights of Overseas Citizens of India - Notification dated 04.03.2021 issued by MHA barring OCI students from competing in seats meant for Indian students in NEET/JEE challenged- Court holds that the notification will apply only prospectively from 04.03.2021- Provisions as contained therein shall apply prospectively only to persons who are born in a foreign country subsequent to 04.03.2021 and who seek for a registration as OCI cardholder from that date. (Para 55) Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Citizenship Act, 1955; Section 7B - Rights of Overseas Citizens of India - Court urges that higher echelons of the Executive should relook the future application of the notification dated 04.03.2021 having regard to the wide ramifications on Indian diaspora. (Para 59) Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Order XLI Rule 23A - Necessary requirement for remand under Rule 23A is that the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary - the reversal has to be based on cogent reasons and for that matter, adverting to and dealing with the reasons that had prevailed with the Trial Court remains a sine qua non. (Para 11.2) Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 23 - the scope of remand in terms of Rule 23 of Order XLI CPC is extremely limited. (Para 11.2) Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 - Remand - An order of remand prolongs and delays the litigation and hence, should not be passed unless the appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the evidence on record is not sufficient to dispose of the matter for reasons like lack of adequate opportunity of leading evidence to a party, where there had been no real trial of the dispute or there is no complete or effectual adjudication of the proceedings, and the party complaining has suffered material prejudice on that account. Where evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be rendered on appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand should not be passed remitting the matter to the lower court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is essential. The first appellate court, if required, can also direct the trial court to record evidence and finding on a particular aspect/issue in terms of Rule 25 to Order XLI, which then can be taken on record for deciding the case by the appellate court. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Liability to pay interest on money deposited by judgment debtor-f the amount is deposited, or paid to the decree holder or person entitled to it, the person entitled to the amount cannot later seek interest on it-This is a rule of prudence, inasmuch as the debtor, or person required to pay or refund the amount, is under an obligation to ensure that the amount payable is placed at the disposal of the person entitled to receive it. Once that is complete (in the form of payment, through different modes, including tendering a Banker’s Cheque, or Pay Order or Demand Draft, all of which require the account holder / debtor to pay the bank, which would then issue the instrument) the tender, or ‘payment’ is complete. (Para 31) K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 84,85 - The deposit of 25% of the amount by the purchaser other than the decree-holder is mandatory and the full amount of the purchase money must be paid within fifteen days from the date of the sale - If the payment is not made within the period of fifteen days, the Court has the discretion to forfeit the deposit, and there the discretion ends but the obligation of the Court to resell the property is imperative - The provisions of the rules requiring the deposit of 25 per cent of the purchase money immediately, on the person being declared as a purchaser and the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale are mandatory and upon noncompliance with these provisions there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a purchaser without depositing 25 per cent of the purchase money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days. When there is no sale within the contemplation of these rules, there can be no question of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Nonpayment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a complete nullity. (Para 8-9) Gas Point Petroleum India Ltd. v. Rajendra Marothi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 89

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 149 - Court Fees Act 1870; Section 4 - Section 149 CPC acts as an exception, or even a proviso to Section 4 of Court Fees Act - In terms of Section 4, an appeal cannot be filed before a High Court without court fee, if the same is prescribed - But an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24, 25 - The power under section 24 of the CPC can be exercised by the High Court even for inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, if it is the common High Court for two or more States under Article 231 of the Constitution and both the Civil Courts (transferor and transferee) are subordinate to it - Section 25 applies to inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding where both States have a High Court in terms of Article 214 of the Constitution and not to a transfer where both States have a common High Court under Article 231 thereof. (Para 48) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 33, Order XX Rule 4(2), 5; Order XLI Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 - Remand - High Court passed order of remand observing that the judgment of the trial court was not written as per the mandate of Section 33 and Rule 4(2) and 5 of Order XX of the Code, as the discussion and reasoning on certain aspects was not detailed and elaborate - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: This is not a case where the evidence is not adduced and on record. In fact, the first portion of the judgment of the High Court elaborately records the contention of the parties and the facts and evidence relied by the parties - First appeal restored before High Court. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 432 – Remission - In determining the entitlement of a convict for premature release, the policy of the State Government on the date of the conviction would have to be the determinative factor. However, if the policy which was prevalent on the date of the conviction is subsequently liberalised to provide more beneficial terms, those should also be borne in mind. (Para 4) Hitesh v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 72

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; Section 46(1), 65, 71 - The provisions of the Cr.P.C. are applicable to all proceedings under the Act including proceedings before the Special Court, except to the extent they are specifically excluded. Hence, Section 71 of the PMLA providing an overriding effect, has to be construed in tune with Section 46(1) and Section 65. (Para 28-29) Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter XXV; Sections 328 to 339 - Though procedural in nature, Chapter XXV becomes substantive when it deals with an accused person of unsound mind - There is not even a need for an application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C. in finding out as to whether an accused would be sound enough to stand a trial, rather it is the mandatory duty of the Court -The whole idea under the provisions discussed is to facilitate a person of unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity, but also to treat him as the one who is having a disability. The role of the Court is to find the remedial measures and do complete justice. (Para 15-16) Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 164 - Non-examination of the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. also has no relevance or bearing to the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for the Investigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during trial. (Para 22) Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173 (8) - Victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial. Therefore, mere filing of the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant. (Para 12.3) Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Supreme Court lays down procedural guidelines to prevent abuse. Juhru v. Karim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 128

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 320 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 147 - Compounding of offences - The Appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of the orders passed by the courts below, as the settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence-This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will. (Para 8, 9, 11) B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 397-401 - In an appeal/revision, the High court could have set aside the order of acquittal only if the findings as recorded by the trial Court were perverse or impossible. (Para 7) P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 142(1) - Notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the NI Act, the power of this Court to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section 138 of the NI Act - the contention that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Act of 1881 would override Section 406 Cr.P.C. and that it would not be permissible for this Court to transfer the said complaint cases, in exercise of power thereunder, cannot be countenanced. (Para 13) Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Transfer of case from one state to another must be ordered sparingly - followed Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 (11) SCALE 562 - It is also important to bear in mind that transfer of a criminal case from one State to another implicitly reflect upon the credibility of not only the State judiciary but also of the prosecution agency. Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Remission - It is not open to the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking up cases for premature release. It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction subject to a more beneficial regime being provided in terms of a subsequent policy determination. The provisions of the law must be applied equally to all persons. Moreover, those provisions have to be applied efficiently and transparently so as to obviate the grievance that the policy is being applied unevenly to similarly circumstanced persons. An arbitrary method adopted by the State is liable to grave abuse and is liable to lead to a situation where persons lacking resources, education and awareness suffer the most. Rajkumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - 439, Section 357 - Interim victim compensation cannot be imposed as a condition for anticipatory bail - Question of interim victim compensation cannot form part of the bail jurisprudence - Victim compensation is simultaneous with the final view taken in respect of the alleged offence, i.e., whether it was so committed or not and, thus, there is no question of any imposition pre-finality of the matter pre-trial - In cases of offences against body, compensation to the victim should be methodology for redemption. Similarly, to prevent unnecessary harassment, compensation has been provided where meaningless criminal proceedings had been started. Such a compensation can hardly be determined at the stage of grant of bail. Talat Sanvi vs State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory bail application for money laundering offence should satisfy rigours of Section 45 PMLA - Observations made by the High Court that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable in connection with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is just contrary to the decision in the case of Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate vs Dr VC Mohan and the same is on misunderstanding of the observations made in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India and Anr.; (2018) 11 SCC 1. (Para 5) Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Constitution of India - Article 243R - The Constitution has imposed a restriction in terms of which nominated members who are brought in on account of their special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration do not have the right to vote- The same restriction finds statutory recognition in Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The above provisions indicate that persons who are nominated under the sub-clause shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Corporation. The Constitution and the Act place value on their experience but the right to vote is not granted to them at meetings of the Corporation. (Para 11) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311 - Departmental enquiry not necessary to terminate the services of a judicial officer on the ground of suppression of criminal case at the time of making application- It is not a case of termination of services for misconduct- t was the case of cancellation of the appointment on not disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7) Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government of India. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Concurrent finding of fact does not call for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any valid ground for interference. (Para 3) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - classification between Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini Landowners is based on one class of landowners being sons of the soil, while the other class being mere landowners, who are not directly attached to the land- not reasonable classification- The justification given by the GNOIDA Authority, and the Full-bench of the High Court assumes that only Pushtaini landowners permanently reside in the subject land or that the subject land is the primary source of income only for Pushtaini landowners, and this assumption has been backed by no empirical data produced by the authority-t. Many Gair-pushtaini landholders, whose main area of residence or their main source of income is also the subject land, would be subject to great discrimination and injustice, if the same compensation that has been granted to the pushtaini landholders is not extended to them. (Para 38 to 40) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Equality test for permissible amendments – Right to Equality – Even permissible amendments would have to be tested on the touchstone of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution – Reducing cut-off marks only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category when other candidates had already acquired some right – Held, violative of right to equality being based not on objective criteria such as the candidates’ suitability but on extraneous reasons namely to accommodate otherwise ineligible candidates – Further held, cut-off marks could not be reduced in the absence of a sound reason that would indicate that the reduced marks also would be sufficient to determine suitability for appointment to advertised posts. (Paras 25, 30) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Supreme Court holds the condition imposed by GAIL on IPCL to be arbitrary- the contractual exercise of providing such a clause runs contrary to every commercial and common sense and is manifestly arbitrary, as IPCL is not being charged under any general terms but for a specific purpose. This purpose cannot exist in the contract in view of the master authority, i.e., the Union of India, providing to the contrary. (Para 21) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Test of classification - To survive the rigors of Article 14, the impugned classification must not only make it through the test of reasonableness, but also clear the Wednesbury Principle, and by extension the Proportionality test. (Para 41) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Test of Proportionality - The classification, as discussed above, if allowed to exist, can lead to several Gair-pushtaini landowners who may also need to be rehabilitated, cannot rehabilitate themselves without compensation for the same. Such a mischief, if allowed to exist, would not only nullify the purpose of the Act, but also violate the third and fourth principle of the proportionality test, and hence is liable to be struck down. (Para 55) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - In cases of offences relating to matrimonial disputes, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed. Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 170 - Article 170 deals with only the State Legislature. It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories. The reason is that the Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A and not by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI. (Para 23) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right to die with dignity - Passive Euthanasia - Supreme Court Constitution Bench simplifies the procedure for executing living will/advance directive by modifiying the he judgment reported in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and Another (2018) 5 SCC 1 - the Court allows the application filed by Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine seeking clarification of the judgment. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - observing that the consultative process is to limit the judicial review, restricting it to the specified area, that is, eligibility, and not suitability - judicial review lies when there is lack of eligibility or ‘lack of effective consultation’. Judicial review does not lie on ‘content’ of consultation. [Para 4] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - prescribes the constitutional requirement of consultation - prescribes the procedure to be followed, which procedure is designed to test the fitness of a person so to be appointed; her character, her integrity, her competence, her knowledge and the like. [Para 3] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2)(a) - Supreme Court rejects the petition filed by nine judicial officers from Andhra Pradesh for consideration for elevation as HC judges- Court holds that their service as ad-hoc judges cannot be reckoned for the purposes of Article 217(2)(a). (Para 8) C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper - Mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition “not maintainable" - Where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. (Para 4-8) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction can be exercised when the State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practices any discrimination. (Para 19) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament is empowered by law to create a body of legislature for the Union territories of Puducherry and J&K.- Even if the law made by Parliament creating a body of legislature for Union territories of Puducherry and J&K has the effect of amending certain parts of the Constitution, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30 - If an employee is continued in service by the management of any registered minority Secondary School receiving Grant-in-Aid from the State-Government, then such school would not be entitled to receive any grant in respect of the expenditure incurred for continuing such employee beyond the stipulated superannuation age. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - It is trite law that this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot issue a mandamus to Parliament to legislate nor does it legislate. The constitutional power to legislate is entrusted to Parliament or, as the case may, the State Legislatures under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution - Supreme Court refuses to entertain pleas to increase age of marriage for women as 21 years. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 143

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - while exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision - it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person. [Para 10] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - The issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence - This question should be raised by the petitioner before the Special Court, since an answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out. (Para 46) Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 51A - casts an obligation on every citizen, and more so on every judge, to promote harmony, spirit of common brotherhood among all transcending religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities. [Para 12] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - Even assuming that the excommunication of members of the Dawoodi Bohra community is always made on religious grounds, the effect and consequences thereof, on the person excommunicated needs to be considered in the context of justiciable Constitutional rights. The excommunication will have many civic consequences which will, prima facie, affect his fundamental right to live with dignity and the right to lead a meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21. Therefore, the question is is whether the said right of the community to excommunicate its members can be balanced with the other fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and in particular, Article 21. (Para 31) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - In our view, the protection under Article 26(b) granted by the decision in the case of Sardar Syedna1 to the power to excommunicate a member of the Dawoodi Bohra community, needs reconsideration as the said right is subject to morality which is understood as Constitutional morality-This issue will require examination by a larger Bench. (Para 28) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - Right to Excommunicate - prima facie, we find that the exercise of balancing the rights under Article 26(b) with other rights under Part III and in particular Article 21 was not undertaken by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sardar Syedna- This question is substantially in issue before the Bench of nine Judges in Sabrimala Temple Review . Moreover, the question whether the protection can be given by Article 26(b) to the practice of excommunication is to be tested on the touchstone of the concept of Constitutional morality as the said right is subject to morality. (Para 34) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Constitutional Court - A High Court ~ howsoever big or small, old or new ~ is as much a Constitutional Court as this Court is and enjoys wide ranging powers vested in it by law. (Para 42) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146

Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Flat-owners' rights - If complaints were to be spurned on the specious ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing, the object and purpose of the enactment would be defeated-in most cases, the jurisdiction of NCDRC is invoked post-purchase-Any deficiency detected post-purchase opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer for a. (Para 11) Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Supreme Court terms Rs 2 crores compensation awarded by the NCDRC for a bad hair-cut suffered by a model at a 5-star hotel saloon as excessive and disproportionate-quantification of compensation has to be based upon material evidence and not on the mere asking. (Para 13, 15) ITC Ltd. v. Aashna Roy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 87

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act - Builder has obligation to seek completion certificate-It is no part of the flat owner’s duty to apply for a completion certificate. (Para 18, 19) Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - When an order has been passed by the highest Court of the country, there is no occasion for the Collector to seek permission for implementation of the orders passed by this Court. Junagadh Municipal Corporation v. Adarsh Cooperative Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Evidence Act 1872 - Last Seen Theory - Once the theory of “last seen together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased-If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence. (Paras 6 to 9) Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Evidence Act 1872- Section 114 - If courts find evidence in possession of a party that has not been produced it can assume that production of the same would be unfavourable to the person who withholds it as per illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. However, on the basis of the fact that an evidence that ought to have been adduced was not adduced, the High Court cannot remand the matter - merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter. (Para 14) Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Evidence Act, 1872 - It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters. (Para 21) Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. (Para 6) Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Insurance Law - Accidental death - Death due to sun stroke during election duty will not come under the scope of the clause "death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violent and any other visible means"- proximate causal relationship between the accident and the body injury is a necessity- plain reading of the clauses is the guiding principle to interpret insurance contracts. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Insurance Law - Court elucidates the principles of interpretation. (Paras 26, 27) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96, 149 - Being short of sufficient funds to pay court fee is not a reason to condone delay in filing appeal - In such a scenario, an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. (Para 5-10) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 - An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day’s delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. (Para 5) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Lokayukta Act, 2014 (Odisha); Section 20(1) - No infirmity in Lokayukta’s direction to the Director of Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack to conduct a preliminary inquiry - Supreme Court sets aside Orissa HC order which set aside Lok Ayukta direction. Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 135

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Aggregators License - The Guidelines issued by the Central Government in 2020 are only of persuasive value and are not mandatory. The ultimate decision on granting a license and formulating rules lies with the State Government, who may consider the Guidelines while making their decision- When the State Government formulates rules in pursuance of its power under Section 96, it may also bear in mind the Guidelines which have been framed by the Union Government in 2020. (Para 8, 9) Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 93 - No person can continue as an aggregator in the absence of a licence- Supreme Court directs Uber to apply for license. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 93, 96 - Cab aggregators license- Supreme Court directs State of Maharashtra to expeditiously frame the rules on granting aggregators license so as to avoid litigation and uncertainty. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Municipal Corporation Act (Delhi) - Delhi Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations - These provisions make it abundantly clear that the election of the Mayor has to be held first. The elected Mayor is then required to preside over the election of the Deputy Mayor as the presiding authority. Consequently, with this clarification, it must be noted that the election of the Mayor shall be conducted first in the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Once the Mayor is elected, the elected Mayor shall be the presiding authority for the purpose of the election of the Deputy Mayor. (Para 12) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119

National Green Tribunal Act 2010; Section 25 - The NGT has power under Section 25 to execute its orders as decrees of a civil court-The Tribunal is entrusted with the wholesome power to ensure that its orders are complied with. (Para 5, 6) Sushil Raghav v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 140

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138, 147 - The nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and is a compoundable offence. (Para 10) B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Conviction cannot be confirmed overriding the agreement between the parties to compound the offence- Terms and conditions of the settlement entered into by the parties binds them to settle the dispute amicably, or through an arbitration as has been stated in clause 8 of the Memorandum of Understanding. In such a circumstance, the Appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of the orders passed by the courts below, as the settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence- This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will. (Para 8, 9, 11) B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - The offence under Section 138 is complete upon dishonour of the cheque but prosecution in relation to such offence is postponed, by virtue of the provisos therein, till the failure of the drawer of the cheque to make the payment within 15 days of receiving the demand notice. (Para 5) Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 142(2)(a) - Section 142(2)(a) vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 138 in the Court where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., through an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account. (Para 12) Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court affirms sentence and conviction of accused for murder based on solitary eyewitness testimony. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - When there is concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the High Court, the Apex Court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence to examine the correctness of such findings of fact, unless there is manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence - Conviction and sentence of mother for killing her 5-year old child upheld. Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 132

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - When marriage has been found to be null and void, the conviction under Section 498A IPC would not be sustainable. (Para 7) P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105, 8 - The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged - The behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence has to be looked into. (Para 8-9) Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - The existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act - A mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law. (Para 4-7) Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - Rigours under Section 45 are applicable to anticipatory bail applications. (Para 5) Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - The area in which the property is derived or obtained or even held or concealed, will be the area in which the offence of money laundering is committed. (Para 39-40) Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; Section 44 - It is the Special Court constituted under the PMLA that would have jurisdiction to try even the scheduled offence. Even if the scheduled offence is taken cognizance of by any other Court, that Court shall commit the same, on an application by the concerned authority, to the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the offence of money-laundering. (Para 36) Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - In a complaint filed under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not open to the Court to impose such onerous conditions upon the appellant, who claims to be a victim of domestic violence. What the Appellate Court and the High Court have ordered are actually in the nature of penalty for the appellant not proceeding with the trial. In the first instance, it is impermissible in law. Bhawna v. Bhay Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148

Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; Section 33(7) - Challenge to provision allowing candidates to contest from two seats rejected - Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative Assembly is a matter of legislative policy. It is a matter pertaining to legislative policy since, ultimately, Parliament determines whether political democracy in the country is furthered by granting a choice such as is made available by Section 33(7) of the Act of 1951. A candidate who contests from more than one seat may do so for a variety of reasons not just bearing on the uncertainty which the candidate perceives of an election result. There are other considerations which weigh in the balance in determining whether this would restrict the course of electoral democracy in the country. This is a matter where Parliament is legitimately entitled to make legislative choices and enact or amend legislation. The Law Commission and the Election Commission may at the material time have expressed certain viewpoints. Whether they should be converted into a mandate of the law depends on the exercise of Parliamentary sovereignty in enacting legislation. Absent any manifest arbitrariness of the provision so as to implicate the provisions of Article 14 or a violation of Article 19, it would not be possible for this Court to strike down the provision as unconstitutional. (Para 12) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 84

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Supreme Court refuses to interfere with HC order quashing FIR lodged by a Dalit IIT faculty member against his colleagues alleging caste-based harassment - Court favours a conciliatory approach and urges the Chairman of Board of Governor to invite the complainant and the accused for talks - Court observes allegations and counter-allegations damage the repute of a premier institution like IIT - Court impresses upon them to ensure that they work together as a team in the best interests of the institution and their students, and do not allow any unfortunate and untoward incidents to occur which might hurt the sentiments, feelings, respect and dignity of each other - Court says the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an impediment to restoration of normalcy and bringing cordiality back between the appellant and the respondents in their professional and personal capacities. Subrahmanyam Saderla v. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 126

SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations 1998; Regulation 19(3) - There is a patent error on the part of the Tribunal in interpreting the Regulations. The Tribunal held that the role of the respondent, who was a Company Secretary, compliance officer, was limited to redressing the grievances of investors. In arriving at the finding, the Tribunal has relied upon the latter part of Regulation 19(3) which deals with redressal of the grievances of investors. The crucial point which has been missed by the Tribunal is that the compliance officer is also required to ensure compliance with the buyback regulations. Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations expressly so stipulates. (Para 11) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101

Service Law - Regularisation - Two conditions for regularisation of daily wage employees - Firstly, initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and Secondly, there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working - No claim for regularization if these conditions are not met. Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91

Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Himachal Pradesh); Section 118 - The whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings. Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose. The purpose is to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. A person who is not an agriculturist can only purchase land in Himachal Pradesh with the permission of the State Government. The Government is expected to examine from a case-to-case basis whether such permission can be given or not - By merely assigning rights to an agriculturist, who will be using the land for a purpose other than agriculture, would defeat the purpose of this Act. (Para 17) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Territorial Jurisdiction of Special PMLA Court – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Act 15 of 2003); Sections 3 and 44 – Place of commission of the offence of money-laundering – The involvement of a person in any one or more of certain processes or activities connected with the proceeds of crime, namely, concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting as untainted property, or claiming as untainted property, constitutes the offence of money-laundering – All the places where any one or more of these processes or activities take place are the places where the offence of money-laundering has been committed – Triable by the special court(s) constituted for the area(s) in which the offence of money-laundering has been committed – Held, the petition could not be entertained since the issue of territorial jurisdiction could not be decided in a writ petition, especially in the presence of a serious factual dispute about the place or places of commission of the offence – Petition dismissed. (Paras 38 to 40) Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 51 - Section 51 applies in terms to a transferee who makes improvements in good faith on a property believing himself to be its absolute owner -In order to attract the Section the occupant of the land must have held possession under colour of title, his possession must not have been by mere possession of another but adverse to the title of the true owner and he must be under the bone fide belief that he has secured good title to the property in question and is the owner thereof - Section 51 gives only statutory recognition to the above three things I it was after encroaching upon the land in question and ignoring the absence of any title that the defendant made structures thereon at his own risk -Once it is so found, the defendant cannot be treated as a ‘transferee’ within the meaning of the TP Act and for the purpose of Section 51, TP Act. (Para 7-11) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110
2. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69
3. Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136
4. Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 109
5. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93
6. Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 73
7. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 122
8. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112
9. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 143
10. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 84
11. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102
12. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105
13. B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75
14. Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78
15. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96
16. Bhawna v. Bhay Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148
17. C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130
18. CCE and ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 106
19. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97
20. Chandmal v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 94
21. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79
22. Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92
23. Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 138
24. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 131
25. Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88
26. Gas Point Petroleum India Ltd. v. Rajendra Marothi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 89
27. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124
28. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70
29. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107
30. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98
31. Hitesh v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 72
32. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 76
33. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104
34. ITC Ltd. v. Aashna Roy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 87
35. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117
36. Juhru v. Karim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 128
37. Junagadh Municipal Corporation v. Adarsh Cooperative Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 103
38. K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68
39. K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77
40. Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118
41. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 82
42. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81
43. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 121
44. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90
45. National Medical Commission v. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 113
46. Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 141
47. Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 135
48. P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116
49. Pancham Lal Pandey v. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 111
50. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 134
51. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 6 Feb 2023 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 99
52. Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71
53. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115
54. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 139
55. Rajkumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 144
56. Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120
57. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123
58. Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86
59. Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74
60. Rashida Begum @ Rashida Khatun v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 85
61. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100
62. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101
63. Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146
64. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 80
65. Shankar Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 114
66. Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119
67. Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145
68. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127
69. State of U.P. v. Priyanka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 95
70. Subrahmanyam Saderla v. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 126
71. Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137
72. Sushil Raghav v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 140
73. Talat Sanvi vs State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 83
74. Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugham, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133
75. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108
76. Union of India v. Bikash Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 147
77. Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129
78. Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 132
79. Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91
80. Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142
81. Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125