1. Mere Acceptance Of Rent By Landlord After The Expiry Of Lease Would Not Amount To Waiver Of Termination Of Lease: Supreme Court Case Title: K.M. Manjunath Vs Erappa. G (D) |SLP(C) 10700 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561 The Supreme Court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia has reiterated that mere acceptance of the rent...
Case Title: K.M. Manjunath Vs Erappa. G (D) |SLP(C) 10700 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561
The Supreme Court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia has reiterated that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease.
Case Title: Deepak Yadav vs State of UP |CrA 861 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562
Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on 20 May 2022.
The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed thus while it allowed appeal against a judgment of Allahabad High Court which granted bail to a murder accused.
3. Trial/Appellate Court Has Full Discretion To Order Sentences To Run Concurrently: Supreme CourtCase Name: Malkeet Singh Gill vs State of Chhattisgarh | CrA 915 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563
The Supreme Court observed that Trial court and Appellate Court has full discretion to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently. In this case, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the charges under Sections 409, 420, 409 read with Section 120B and 420 read with Section 1 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 04 years, 07 years, 01 year and 02 years respectively along with fine and also directed to serve the sentences one after the other. The Appellate Court upheld the judgment. The High Court while allowing the Revision in part directed that sentences so awarded shall run concurrently.
While considering the appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record.
4.Substantive Right Accrued To A Litigant Should Not Be Defeated Citing Procedural Defects Capable Of Being Cured: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinita Mehta | CA 4639 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564
The Supreme Court observed that substantive right accrued to the litigant should not be defeated citing a procedural defect capable of being cured. "It is a trite law that the procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
5.Purchaser Of Suit Property Cannot File Application Under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC Objecting Execution Of Decree By Decree Holder: Supreme CourtCase Title: Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd vs Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565
The Supreme Court observed that purchaser of the suit property from the decree holder is not entitled to file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 objecting execution of the decree by the decree holder.
6.Plea Of Territorial Jurisdiction Or Lack Thereof Cannot Be Entertained In A Transfer Petition U/Sec 25 CPC : Supreme CourtCase Name: Neilan International Co. Ltd. vs Powerica Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 566
The Supreme Court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 25 of CPC cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings. The plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending, Justice JK Maheshwari observed.
7. Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Power To Pass Judgment On Admissions Discretionary Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Supreme CourtCase Title: Karan Kapoor vs Madhuri Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 567
The Supreme Court observed that the power to pass judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The said power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
8. Landlord Entitled To Mesne Profits From Tenant When Execution Of Decree Of Eviction Is Stayed : Supreme CourtCase Title : M/s Martin & Harris Private Ltd vs Rajendra Mehta
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 568
The Supreme Court has reiterated that once a decree for eviction is stayed, it is necessary for the appellate court to fix the mesne profits to be paid by the tenant to the landlord for continuing the possession of the premises. "Thus, after passing the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from the use of the premises", observed a bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari in the case M/s Martin & Harris Private Ltd vs Rajendra Mehta.
9.'A Proficient Advocate Must Be Physically Fit' : Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation For Lawyer Who Suffered DisabilitiesCase Title: Abhimanyu Partap Singh v Namita Sekhon & Another| CA 4648 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569
Observing that physical fitness is necessary for a proficient advocate and physical disabilities hamper the smooth functioning of a lawyer, the Supreme Court recently granted relief to an advocate who had suffered 100% permanent disability due to an accident. The Court partly allowed his appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the High Court from Rs 23,20,000/- to Rs 51,62,000/-.
10.Electricity Cannot Be Denied To Tenant Merely Because Landlord Refused To Issue No Objection Certificate: Supreme CourtCase Name: Dilip (D) vs Satish | CrA 810 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570
The Supreme Court observed that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. "Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and CT Ravikumar observed.
11. Employee Can't Claim Equal Pay Due To Mere Similarity Of Designation Or Similarity Of Quantum Of Work : Supreme CourtCase Title: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. v SEEMA SHARMA| Civil Appeal No 3892 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571
An employee can't claim parity of pay scale with another due to mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work, held the Supreme Court recently.
"The doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way. Mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court had to consider all the relevant factors such as the mode of recruitment, qualifications for the post, the nature of work, the value of work, responsibilities involved and various other factors", the Court observed quoting from an earlier precedent.
12.Person Who Secures Appointment On The Basis Of A False Caste Certificate Cannot Be Permitted To Retain Benefit Of Wrongful Appointment : Supreme CourtCase title: Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai vs Mahesh Kumar Gonnade | CA 4990 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment.
13. Likelihood Of Divergence Of Views Cannot Be A Ground For Transfer Under Article 139A Of Constitution : Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India vs United Planters Association Of Southern India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573
The Supreme Court observed that the likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari dismissed the Transfer petitions under Article 139A(1) read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, filed by Union of India and other parties who prayed for transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court.
14.Petition Under Article 227 Of Constitution Not To Be Entertained If Statutory Alternative Remedy By Way Of Appeal Is Available: Supreme CourtCase Name: Mohamed Ali vs V. Jaya | CA 4113 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574
The Supreme Court observed that a writ petition/Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India ought not to be entertained when a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while allowing the appeal against the order of the High Court of Madras which, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the exparte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
15.Supreme Court Sentences Vijay Mallya To 4 Months Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court; Asks Him To Deposit 40 Million US DollarsCase Title : State Bank of India and others vs Dr.Vijay Mallya
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575
The Supreme Court has sentenced fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya to four months imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2000 for contempt of court.
Mallya was found guilty in 2017 for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the orders passed in a case filed by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India.
Pronouncing the sentence today, the Court said that Mallya did not show any remorse for his conduct and did not appear before it during the sentence hearing. The Court added that adequate sentence must be imposed on him to "uphold the majesty of law" and that directions need to be issued to ensure that the amount in dispute is available for execution of the orders. Therefore, the Court has directed Mallya to deposit 40 million US Dollars with 8 percent interest within 4 weeks with the concerned recovery officer, failing which attachment proceedings will be initiated against his properties.
16.Tendering Of False Affidavit/Undertakings Can Amount To Contempt Of Court: Supreme CourtCase Name: In Re Perry Kansagra | SMC(C) 3 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576
The Supreme Court observed that the tendering of affidavits and undertakings containing false statement would amount to contempt of court.
A person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court, the comprising Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha observed.
17.Accused Entitled To Bail If Arrest Was In Breach Of Sections 41, 41A CrPC : Supreme CourtCase Title: Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577
The Supreme Court observed that any non-compliance of Section 41 and 41A of Criminal Procedure Code at the time of arrest would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed that Section 41 and 41A are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
"The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar judgment..Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action", the bench said.
Section 436A CrPC Applicable To Special Acts In Absence Of Any Specific Provision : Supreme Court
18.Bombay Blasts Case Convict Abu Salem Has To Be Released After 25 Years Of Sentence As Per Extradition Treaty With Portugal : Supreme CourtCase Title: Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2015
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578
The Supreme Court has held that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Abu Salem in the 1993 Bombay Blasts case has to remitted upon the completion of 25 years from the date of his extradition to India, as the sovereign commitment made by the Government of India to the Republic of Portugal at the time of extraditing Salem to India was that his sentence will not exceed 25 years.
"On the appellant completing 25 years of sentence, the Central Government is bound to advise the President of India for exercise of powers under Article 72 of the Constitution of India and to release the appellant in terms of the national commitment as well as the principle based on the comity of courts", the Court ordered.
19.On Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree, Defendants Who Have Not Filed Written Statement Can Be Permitted To Cross Examine Witnesses: Supreme CourtCase Name: Nanda Dulal Pradhan vs Dibakar Pradhan | CA 4151 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579
The Supreme Court observed that by setting aside the exparte decree, the defendants can be permitted to participate in the suit proceedings and cross-examine the witnesses.
20.Applicability Of Section 27A Is Seriously Questionable : Supreme Court Upholds Bail Granted To NDPS AccusedCase Name: State of West Bengal vs Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580
The Supreme Court observed that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act will not apply in a case where applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable and there was no recovery from the accused and quantity in question was intermediate quantity.
21Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs Diwan Chand Anand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581
The Supreme Court observed that an appeal as a whole cannot be treated as abated merely for failure to substitute the legal representative of some of the respondents who died during pendency of the appeal.
While considering whether the suit/appeal has abated due to non bringing the legal representatives of plaintiffs/defendants or not, the Court has to examine if the right to sue survives against the surviving respondents, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
22.Not Prudent To Convict An Accused Solely On Basis Of Identification For The First Time In Court Without Test Identification Parade: Supreme CourtCase Name: Amrik Singh vs State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582
Clarifying an important aspect regarding Test Identification Parade (TIP), the Supreme Court on held that it would not be prudent to convict an accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in court.
A Division Bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that,
"Even applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and looking to the facts narrated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that it would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court."
23.Twin Conditions In Section 10B (8) Income Tax Act Has To Be Fulfilled To Claim Exemption Relief: Supreme CourtCase Name: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore vs Wipro Limited
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583
For claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the Income Tax Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment.
24.Court Under Section 34,37 Arbitration Act Cannot Modify An Award ; It Can Only Remand : Supreme CourtCase Name: National Highways Authority of India vs P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584
The Supreme Court observed that, under Section 34 or 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a Court cannot modify the award passed by the Arbitrator. The option would be to set aside the award and remand the matter, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna said.
25.Amendment Of Plaint Cannot Be Permitted If It Is Likely To Change Nature Of The Suit: Supreme CourtCase Name: Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. vs Alok Kumar Lodha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585
The Supreme Court observed that a Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment of plaint if the nature of the suit is likely to be changed.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that the Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and / or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus.
26,NCLT Has Discretion To Not Admit Financial Creditor's CIRP Application Even If Corporate Debtor Is In Default : Supreme CourtCase Name: Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs Axis Bank Limited | CA 4633 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587
The Supreme Court observed that it is not mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to admit an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process even if a debt existed and the Corporate debtor is in default.
However, such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari cautioned.
The court observed that, ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition.
27.Relief Of Specific Performance Can Be Denied If Suit Was Not Immediately Filed After Breach; Rise In Real Estate Prices Also A Relevant Factor : Supreme CourtCase Name: U N Krishnamurthy vs A M Krishnamurthy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588
The Supreme Court observed that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff is a condition precedent for grant of the relief of Specific Performance.
The court added that there is a distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance.
28.'Detention Beyond Release Date Violates Article 21' : Supreme Court Grants Rs 7.5 Lakh Compensation To Convict Kept In Prison In Excess Of Sentence PeriodCase Name: Bhola Kumhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589
The Supreme Court has directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay Rs 7.5 Lakhs as compensation to a rape convict who was kept in prison beyond the period of sentence.
"When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment.", the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed in a judgment delivered in May 2022.
29.Assassination Or Bodily Injury Not Necessary For Offence Under Sec 121A IPC : Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence In IISc Terror Attack CaseCase Title: MOHAMMAD IRFAN VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of four persons for causing the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru in December, 2005.
While doing so, a three judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat observed that under section 121 A of the Indian Penal Code [Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121-waging war against India], the expression "overawe" would imply creation of an apprehension or situation of alarm and it would not be necessary that the danger should be one of assassination or bodily injury.
30.Insurance Company Cannot Be Held Guilty Of Deficiency Of Service Solely For Delay In Processing/Repudiating Claims: Supreme CourtCase Name: New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Shashikala J Ayachi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591
The Supreme Court observed that an insurer cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service solely for delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation. "They could be one of the several factors for holding an insurer guilty of deficiency in service. But it cannot be the only factor", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
31.Sufficiency Or Inadequacy Of Reasons To Believe Cannot Be Looked Into While Considering Validity Of Search & Seizure U/Sec 132 Income Tax Act: Supreme CourtCase Name: Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) vs Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, restated the principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.
"The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
32.Preliminary Assessment To Try Juvenile As Adult - JJB Should Mandatorily Take Assistance Of Psychologist/Psycho-Social Workers : Supreme CourtCase Name: Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593
The Supreme Court has held that when the Juvenile Justice Board does not comprise a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, it would be obligated to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts under proviso to Section 15(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act).
Initially all children below the age of 18 years were to be treated as juvenile and tried by the Board. Only after the 2015 Act came into force, a separate category for juveniles between 16 to 18 years involved in heinous crime, was culled out, who were subjected to a preliminary assessment to ascertain if they are to be tried as a child by the Board or as an adult by the Children's Court under Section 15 of the Act.
33.Advisable That High Court Delivers Judgment Soon After Conclusion Of Arguments : Supreme CourtCase Title: State of UP & Anr v Akhil Sharda| CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.840 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
While considering a criminal appeal wherein High Court had delivered the judgement after reserving it for six months, the Supreme Court has observed that it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved.
34.Fixing Time Period For Completing Disciplinary Proceedings Causing More Complications, Says Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India vs Sharvan Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595
Very many times, fixing of time period for completing disciplinary proceedings causes more complications and harm rather than serving the cause of justice, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment recently.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari observed that fixing of such period could only be justified if there are strong and compelling reasons for the same.
35."Ring Of Truth" : Supreme Court Lays Down Principles For Appreciation Of Ocular Evidence In Criminal CaseCase Name: Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered in a criminal appeal, laid down principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case.
In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are (1) whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and (2) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
36.Already Admitted Criminal Appeal Against Conviction Cannot Be Dismissed On The Ground That Accused Is Absconding : Supreme CourtCase Name: Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai vs State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597
The Supreme Court observed that an already admitted appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed on the ground that the accused is absconding.
37.CBI Investigation Can't Be Ordered On Mere Asking By Defacto Complainant; Mere Allegations Against Police Not Sufficient : Supreme CourtCase Name: Himanshu Kumar And Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598
The Supreme Court held that when a citizen, who is a de facto complainant, approaches the Court seeking direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations of commission of cognizable offence by high Government officials or influential persons, the same ought not to be granted on mere asking. Indicating that it is trite law, the Apex Court referred to the judgment in the State of West Bengal And Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571, wherein the Apex Court had held that investigation can be handed over to the CBI only in 'rare and exceptional case' - where it becomes imperative to provide credibility and to instil confidence in the investigation or in incidents having national and international ramification or for doing complete justice and for enforcing fundamental rights.
38.Failure Of Relationship Is No Ground For FIR For Repeated Rape When Woman Had Been Willingly Living With Man For Years : Supreme CourtCase Title: ANSAAR MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599
Remarking that where a woman has willingly been staying with a man and had a relationship with him, and if the relationship is not working out now, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence of committing rape repeatedly on the same woman (Section 376(2)(n)), the Supreme Court on Thursday granted pre-arrest bail to the man accused of rape for failing to fulfill promise to marry in a relationship where even a child was born.
"...the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC", the Court's order recorded.
39.Supreme Court Remands Appeal In 1964 Suit To High Court For Fresh Decision After 16 YearsCase Title : Farooqi Begum through legal representatives vs State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court recently remanded to the Allahabad High Court an appeal arising out a suit filed in 1964 in a property dispute. The second appeal in the suit was filed before the High Court in 1975. The High Court decided the second appeal in 2006, after 31 years.
The appeal against the High Court judgment was filed before the Supreme Court in 2006. After 16 years, the Supreme Court has now remanded the appeal to the High Court, observing that certain inadmissible evidence was relied upon and relevant materials were overlooked.
40.'As Officers Of Court, Advocates Should Advise Clients Properly': SC Mulls Action Against Lawyers For Filing Multiple Cases To Defeat Eviction OrderCase Title: AMRISH KUMAR JINDAL v. M/S GANESH IRON STORE & ORS.
Stating that "as officers of the Court, they have a higher responsibility to advise the clients properly", the Supreme Court on Wednesday took a serious view of advocates who, after its order upholding eviction in a matter, advised the filing of multiple proceedings in different courts to "defeat" its order.
The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh was hearing an SLP against a March 7, 2022 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a civil revision where the SLP petitioner- landlord had prayed for issuance of direction to the Executing court to complete the execution proceedings in a time bound manner, urging that the order of eviction which has been upheld even upto the Supreme Court is being frustrated by filing of multiple suits and objections by the partners/proprietor of the respondent-firm.
Case Title: Amarendra Kumar Pandey vs Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600
The Supreme Court explained the scope of judicial review of action of administrative authority based on it's subjective opinion or satisfaction.
"The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion", the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, held that it is not open for High Courts to implead third parties in exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provision that deals with anticipatory bail.
Case Title : Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601
In a plea assailing interim orders of the Patna High Court which had issued notice seeking appearance of Sahara Chief Subrata Roy in anticipatory bail proceedings of one Promod Kumar Saini and co-accused, a Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala observed -
"We hold that it is not open to the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to add third parties to the proceedings, as if it is invoking powers under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure much less those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration."
Case Title: Gregory Patrao vs Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602
The Supreme Court observed that its subsequent decisions which have considered and distinguished the earlier decisions are binding on High Courts.
Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Nemichand Damodardas
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603
The Supreme Court observed that prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner meant for calculation of the stamp duty cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Case Title : Mekala Sivaiah Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604
In a judgment dismissing a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court explained the scope of criminal appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 136 is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice, the court said. Referring to earlier judgments, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari made the following observations.
Case Title : Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu And Ors.
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605
The Supreme Court has held that in petition seeking writ of habeas corpus in matter relating to custody of child, the Court exercises an inherent jurisdiction, independent of any statute and therein the paramount consideration of the Court is to ascertain what is in the best interest of the child.
Case Title: Col. Vineet Raman Sharda vs Union of India
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (SC) 606
The Supreme Court observed that opportunity of hearing is not required to be afforded to army officers before suspending them pending the Court of Inquiry. Even under Regulation 349 also, there is no requirement of such a procedure to be followed, the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Asha Rani Gupta v Sir Vineet Kumar| Civil Appeal 4682 of 2022
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607
The Supreme Court has observed that a defendant cannot enjoy the property during pendency of suit without depositing the amount of rent/damages by merely denying the relationship of landlord- tenant/lessor-lessee.
Case Title : Abhishek Singh Chauhan vs Union of India WP (Crl) 40/2022
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608
The Supreme Court, in a recent order, directed State-wise clubbing of the FIRs filed against an accused in different states. We are of the opinion that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest, the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case Title : Ajmal vs State of Kerala
Citation:2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated its views regarding considerations relevant for determining a culpable homicide amounting to murder and distinguishing it from the culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Case Title : Indresh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh |
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610
The Supreme Court observed that statements made under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence. "Ex facie, the allegations are grave, and it cannot be said that there are no materials on record at all", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said while setting aside an order of Allahabad High Court that granted bail to a man accused of rape and murder of eleven year old girl.
Case Title : Union of India vs Ex Naik Ram Singh CA 9654 OF 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 611
Personnel are not eligible for disability pension if there is not even a causal connection between the Military service and injuries. Unless the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the entitlement to disability pension does not arise, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and MM Sundresh observed.
Case Title: R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram vs Sri Kayarohanasamy And Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612
The Supreme Court observed that the dedication of a property as a religious endowment does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances. Extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time, which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed thus while holding that Adipooram Thiruvabaranam comprising of the 26 items of jewellery, some of which are embedded with diamonds and precious stones, belongs to the deity Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman of the Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple.
Case Title : Narcotics Control Bureau vs Mohit Aggarwal |CrA 1001-1002 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613
The Supreme Court observed that the expression "reasonable grounds" used in Section 37(1)(b) under NDPS Act would mean credible, plausible grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence.
Case Title : Talli Gram Panchayat vs Union of India CA 383-384 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court observed that single member benches of National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot be constituted. The proviso to Section 4(4)(c) NGT Act mandates that there shall be at least one expert member on the Bench, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed. The court added that a delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making.
Case Title: Ravi Sharma v GNCTD| Criminal Appeal 410/2015
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615
The Supreme Court recently restored the acquittal of an accused in a murder case, after finding fault with the High Court for reversing the trial court's order.
"The law presumes double presumption in favour of the accused after a due adjudication by the trial Court. We do believe that the High Court could have been slower in reversing the order of acquittal rendered by the Court of First Instance", the Supreme Court observed.
"While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed", the Court added referring to precedents.
Case Title : Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs NCC Limited CA 341 OF 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616
The Supreme Court held that, at the stage of deciding application for appointment of arbitrator, a Court can consider whether the dispute falls within the excepted clause. The court observed that the question of jurisdiction and non-arbitrability can be considered by a Court at the stage of deciding an application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the facts are very clear and glaring.
Case Title : SS Engineers vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd | CA 4583 OF 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617
The Supreme Court observed that application of the Operational Creditor for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) must be dismissed, if the debt is disputed. It is not the object of the IBC that CIRP should be initiated to penalize solvent companies for non-payment of disputed dues claimed by an operational creditor, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed. The bench also remarked that the adjudicating authority under IBC i.e. NCLT is not a 'debt collection forum' and the objective of IBC is not to penalize solvent companies for non-payment of disputed dues claimed by an operational creditor.
Case Title : X vs Y
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 618
The Supreme Court, in an order passed recently, called upon its Registry to examine the plea of a litigant based on 'right to be forgotten' and 'right of eraser'. "We thus, call upon the Registry of the Supreme Court to examine the issue and to work out how the name of both the petitioner and respondent No.1 along with address details can be masked so that they do not appear visible for any search engine", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
Case Name: Union of India And Ors. v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy| Civil Appeal No. 6536 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, noted in order to be eligible for disability pension under Rule 14 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the ailment or disability of a soldier had arisen in service. It ought to be also established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service.
While rejecting grant of benefit of Section 14(b) and 14(c) to the soldier (respondent) who was discharged not on medical, but administrative grounds, a Bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian noted that to establish the reason for disability or ailment reliance has to be placed on expert medical opinion based on an in depth study of the cause and nature of an ailment/disability including the symptoms; the conditions of service to which the soldier was exposed; and the connection between the cause/aggravation of the ailment/disability and the conditions and/or requirements of service.
Case Status: Narinder Singh vs Divesh Bhutani
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620
The Supreme Court held that prior permission of the Central Government is required to allow any change of user of forest or deemed forest land. The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar held that the lands covered by the special orders issued under Section 4 of Punjab Land Preservation Act,1900, have all the trappings of forest lands within the meaning of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore, the State Government or competent authority cannot permit its use for non-forest activities without the prior approval of the Central Government with effect from 25th October 1980, the bench held. The court thus directed all the concerned authorities to take action to remove the remaining illegal structures standing on land covered by the special orders and used for non-forest activities on the said lands erected after 25th October 1980, without prior approval of the Central Government, and further to restore status quo ante including to undertake reforestation/afforestation programmes in right earnest.
Case Title : X vs The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department |
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621
"Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom", observed the Supreme Court on Thursday while allowing an unmarried woman to seek abortion of her pregnancy of a term of 24 weeks which arose out of a consensual relationship.
Case Details: State of Haryana vs Samarth Kumar | CrA 1005-1006 OF 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622
The Supreme Court observed that an accused under NDPS Act may be able to take advantage of the Tofan Singh judgment at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail to an accused under NDPS Act.
Case Title: The Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Anr. v Vipin Dhanaitkar & Ors.| SLP (CIVIL) No. 12133 of 2020]
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the direction issued by Madhya Pradesh High Court for an investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against the trustees of the Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust of Indore over alleged misappropriation of government properties. However, the Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act 1951 will apply to the Khasgi trust and directed the trustees to get the Khasgi Trust registered under the Public Trusts Act by making the necessary application within a period of one month from today. The trust is created in relation to certain properties of the erstwhile princely state of Indore. The trust deed was executed in 1962 between Maharani Usha Devi of Indore, the daughter and successor of Yashwantrao Holkar( the Maharaja of Indore at the time of joining India) and the nominee of the President of India. In 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered an EOW probe into alleged illegal sale of the Khasgi properties, observing that government properties vested with the state were alienated.
66. There Cannot Be Two Arbitration Proceedings With Respect To Same Contract/Transaction: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S TANTIA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 624
Observing that it is of the "firm opinion that there cannot be two arbitration proceedings with respect to the same contract/transaction", the Supreme Court stated that when a dispute has earlier been referred to arbitration and an award was passed on the claims made, then it is "rightful" to refuse to refer to arbitration- in exercise of Section 11(6) of the 1996 Arbitration Act- a fresh arbitration proceeding sought to be initiated with respect to some further claims.
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anand Engineering College | SLP(C) 10084-85/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626
The Supreme Court observed that a forest department cannot impose damages under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. For that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Status: NCV Aishwarya vs AS Saravana Karthik Sha | CA 4894 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
The Supreme Court observed that generally it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
"In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari observed.
Case Title : Union of India vs. M/s Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 628
In a relief to several assessees who missed the statutory deadline, the Supreme Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to allow a 2-month additional window from September 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022 for claiming Transitional Credit. TRAN-1 and TRAN-forms were brought to allow assessees to carry forward pre-GST credits to the GST system. As per the GST Rules, such claims had to be filed within 90 days from the date when the GST Act came into force (July 1, 2017). Different High Courts passed directions for extending the time line, against which the GST department approached the Supreme Court.
Case Title : Mohammed Zubair vs State of NCT of Delhi and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629
The Supreme Court on Monday uploaded the judgment in the Mohammed Zubair case, with some important reminders to the police agencies against the use of power of arrest as a "punitive tool". A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna had last week granted bail to Zubair in all the 6 FIRs registered by the Uttar Pradesh police in different districts over his tweets and clubbed those cases with the Delhi FIR. The Court had only released the operative portion of the order on July 20 to enable the early release of the petitioner and the complete judgment was uploaded today evening. From the facts of the case, the bench concluded that the criminal justice system was "relentlessly employed against" the fact-checking journalist and that he was trapped in a "vicious cycle of the criminal process". The Court stated in the judgment that the power of arrest is not unbridled and had also categorically refused to impose a bail condition that Zubair should not post tweets.
71. No Wrong In Disqualifying Candidate For Not Using Prescribed Language In OMR Sheet : Supreme Court
Case Title: Union of India vs Mahendra Singh | CA 4807 OF 2022 | 25 July 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 630
The Supreme Court upheld rejection of candidature of a candidate who used different language in the application form than the OMR sheet. Since the advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up of the application form and also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey | SLP(Crl) 4599 OF 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631
The Supreme Court observed that a trial court could not discharge the accused from murder charges merely relying on Post mortem report indicating cause of death as "cardio respiratory failure".
"The post mortem report, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence. The doctor's statement in court is alone the substantive evidence", the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S Oka and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case Title : All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai vs Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of petitions filed by various private tour operators seeking exemption from the Goods and Services Tax for the Haj and Umrah services offered by them to pilgrims travelling to Saudi Arabia.
A bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, A. S. Oka and C. T. Ravikumar pronounced the judgment. Justice Oka, who read out the operative protion of the judgment, said "we have dismissed the petitions on both the grounds of exemption and discrimination". Justice Oka said that the argument raised by the petitioners regarding extra territorial application of GST for services given outside India is kept open, as it is pending consideration before another bench.
Case Title: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India | SLP (Crl) 4634 OF 2014 | 27 July 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, upheld the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which relate to the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 of the PMLA, which relate to the powers of ED's power of arrest, attachment, search and seizure. The Court also upheld the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the Act and said that it has "reasonable nexus" with the objects of the Act.
The Court also upheld the "twin-conditions" for bail in Section 45 of the PMLA Act and said that the Parliament was competent to amend the said provision in 2018 even after the Supreme Court's judgment in the Nikesh Tharachand Shah case (which had struck down the twin conditions). The bench said that the Parliament is competent to amend Section 45 in the present form to cure the defects pointed out in the Supreme Court judgment.
Also Read: Summary Of Supreme Court's PMLA Judgement- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs Union of India
Case Title: R.D. Jain and Co. vs Capital First Ltd. | CA 175 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634
The Supreme Court held that the District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Thus, the expression "District Magistrate" and the "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while upholding the Bombay High Court judgment.
The court therefore overruled the contrary view taken in some judgments of the High Courts of Gujarat, Calcutta and Kerala.
Also Read: Addl. CMM Not Subordinate To CMM In Exercise Of Judicial Powers: Supreme Court
Case Title: All India Judges Association vs Union of India & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 635
Emphasizing on the need to revise the pay structure for the judicial officers, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered for implementation of the enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 2016.
The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also directed the Center and the States to pay the arrears to the officers in 3 instalments - 25% in 3 months, another 25% in next 3 months and balance by June 30, 2023.
The Top Court also observed that it was imperative for revision of pay structure immediately since judicial officers were not covered by the Pay Commission constituted by the State and centre.
Case Title: Imtiaz Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 636
Expressing concerns at the lack of proper judicial infrastructure in many states, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Law Secretaries of all State Governments to file affidavits relating to budget allocation and utilization.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant has sought the following information from Law Secretaries of all States :
- The extent of funds which have been made available to state on centrally sponsored schemes
- Amount disbursed by the state government for the state and District judiciary
- Amount which remains to be provided to the state and district judiciary and were diverted to other projects
- Details of utilization certificate from the financial year 2017-18 to 2021-22.
The Court also directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to respond within 4 weeks to the note submitted by the Amicus Curiae regarding the infrastructure and strength of Judges in each of the respective States or the Union Territories.
Case Title : State of Karnataka vs BR Muralidhar | CA 1966 OF 2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637
The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment which held the Section 20 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 as unconstitutional.
The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the High Court dealt with this issue in a cryptic manner without analyzing all relevant aspects needed to be considered by a Constitutional Court.
"There is a presumption about the constitutionality of the law made by the Parliament/State Legislature.", the bench observed.
79. Mother Can Give Surname Of Second Husband To Child After Death Of Biological Father : Supreme Court
Case Title: Akella Lalita vs Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao | CA 6325-6326 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638
The Supreme Court has observed that a mother who remarries after the death of the biological father can decide the surname of the child and include it in her new family.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment which directed a mother to change the surname of her child and also to show the name of her new husband in records only as 'step father'.
Also Read: A Relief For Which No Prayer Or Pleading Was Made Should Not Be Granted : Supreme Court
Case Title :All Kerala Distributors Association vs State of Kerala | CA 4502 OF 2009
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (SC) 639
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 4(7), 4(8) and 15 of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 and Section 8A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985.
Dismissing the appeals against the Kerala High Court judgment, the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar observed that these provisions are in no way in conflict with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
"The State enactments do not create any new liability or obligation in relation to the permit issued under the 1988 Act (Central legislation), but it provides for dispensation to ensure timely collection of the welfare fund contribution as well as vehicle tax payable by the same vehicle owner/permit-holder", the bench observed.
Case Details: Kanchan Kumari vs State of Bihar | CrA 1031 OF 2022
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (SC) 640
The Supreme Court reiterated that a peremptory direction affecting a third party cannot be issued in an anticipatory bail order. Very recently, in another case, the Apex Court had held that it is not open for High Courts to implead third parties in exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Title: Hemant Kumar Verma vs Employee State Insurance Corporation| W.P.(C) No. 444/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 641
The Supreme Court of India on Friday held that Junior Resident Doctors serving in Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) run hospitals as part of their bond period cannot claim 50% in-service quota for Post Graduate courses at par with Insurance Medical Officers. The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was hearing a petition seeking to declare all junior resident doctors to be eligible for the in-service quota for doctors of the ESIC for the purpose of inclusion for reservation in PG courses. Another direction which was sought was to extend the 50% quota in-service doctors reservation of PG courses to the junior resident doctors as well.
Case Title: Daxaben vs State of Gujarat SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642
The Supreme Court observed that an FIR under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of settlement. The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that 'abetment of suicide' also falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. "Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim", the bench observed.
Case Title: Rohith Thammana Gowda vs State of Karnataka | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643
The Supreme Court observed that the question of 'what is the wish/desire' of the child is different and distinct from the question 'what would be the best interest of the child'.
"The question 'what is the wish/desire of the child' can be ascertained through interaction, but then, the question as to 'what would be the best interest of the child' is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances", the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed