Supreme Court Monthly Digest October 2022 (Citation 815 - 892)

Advocates Act, 1961; Section 32 - The enabling provision of Section 32, whereby any Court, authority or person may permit any non-advocate to appear before it or him in any particular case is difficult to be read as creating a corresponding bar in giving permission to a GPA holder of a party to represent that party as such, if the said GPA holder, during pendency of the proceedings in the Court, gets enrolled as an advocate. (Para 14) S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 861

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Interest - Party not entitled to interest for the period during which the proceedings were deliberately delayed-A party cannot be permitted to derive benefits from its own lapses. [Para 12 to 14] Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Court can undertake preliminary inquiry to ascertain if the dispute is arbitrable or falls under the excepted category in the agreement. (Para 7) Emaar India Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 823

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7)(a) - the section itself requires interest to be at such rate as the arbitral tribunal deems reasonable. When a discretion is vested to an arbitral tribunal to award interest at a rate which it deems reasonable, then a duty would be cast upon the arbitral tribunal to give reasons as to how it deems the rate of interest to be reasonable - When the arbitral tribunal is empowered with such a discretion, the arbitral tribunal would be required to apply its mind to the facts of the case and decide as to whether the interest is payable on whole or any part of the money and also as to whether it is to be awarded to the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 2(1)(e), 9,14 and 34 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 3 - State Government can confer jurisdiction to hear applications under Sections 9, 14 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, upon Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District - All applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of Act, 1996, other than international commercial arbitration, shall be filed in and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Courts, exercising the territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such commercial courts have been constituted. (Para 6-11) Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 860

Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 - Transfer Petitions filed by RBI - All the writ petitions which have been filed before the High Courts challenging the validity of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020 and/or the circular dated 25 June 2021 shall stand transferred to the High Court of Madras. Reserve Bank of India v. Big Kancheepuram Cooperative Town Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 850

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1988 - Modified Vapour Absorption Chiller Machines cannot be categorized as a Heat Pump to avail concessional tariff benefits - The end use of MVAC is to produce Chilled Water. The use of heat as one of the sources in the airconditioning system would not take away the primary or basic function of the MVAC, which is to cool and not heat water - Definition of a product given in the HSN should be given due weightage in the classification of a product for the purpose of levying excise duty. Thermax Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-1, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 881

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 174(2)(c) - Whether the Union of India can be directed to adhere to the representation as made by it in the Office Memorandum dated 7th January 2003 even after the enactment of the CGST Act ? - Proviso to Section 174(2)(c) provides therein that any tax exemption granted as an incentive against investment through a notification shall not continue as privilege if the said notification is rescinded - If the contention is accepted, it will amount to enforcing a representation made in the said O.M. of 2003 and 2003 Notification contrary to the legislative incorporation in the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act. Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 852

Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Court directed the state of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by Tata Motors with respect to the sale of buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) -transaction in question, namely, sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, the sale/s is/are found to be in the nature of inter-state sale/s. In that view of the matter, the appellant – Tata Motors Limited was liable to pay central sales tax to the State of Jharkhand. However, treating the sale as stock transfer, the appellant/its representative had paid the tax on the aforesaid transaction to the State of Andhra Pradesh which is not leviable by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the amount of central sales tax recovered by the State of Andhra Pradesh is required to be transferred to the State of Jharkhand and the same is required to be adjusted towards the amount of tax to be paid to the State of Jharkhand. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847

Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Prior to insertion of Section 22(1B) to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there was no provision by which the Appellate Authority could have issued directions for refund of the tax collected by the State which has been held by the Appellate Authority to be not due to that State, or alternatively, direct that State to transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central sales tax is due on the same transaction. However, by the Finance Act, 2010, Section 22(1B) has been inserted to Act 1956 providing for refund-in line with Section 22(1B) of the Act 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to transfer to the State of Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by the appellant with the State of Andhra Pradesh with respect to transaction in question. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A CPC - Counter-claim in question could not have been removed out of consideration merely because it was presented after a long time since after filing of the written statement - No bar for taking the belatedly filed counter-claim on record, which was indeed filed before framing of issues. (Para 13-14) Mahesh Govindji Trivedi v. Bakul Maganlal Vyas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 836

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2 - Where there are more than one plaintiffs, the entire suit cannot be held to be abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs. (Para 8-9) Siravarapu Appa Rao v. Dokala Appa Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 845

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Electricity Act, 2003; Section 125 - For determining whether a case involves substantial question of law, the test is not merely the importance of the question, but its importance to the case itself necessitating the decision of the question. The appropriate test for determining whether the question of law raised in the case is substantial would be to see whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties. If it is established that the decision is contrary to law or the decision has failed to determine some material issue of law or if there is substantial error or defect in the decision of the case on merits, the court can interfere with the conclusion of the lower court or tribunal. The stakes involved in the case are immaterial as long as the impact or effect of the question of law has a bearing on the lis between the parties - In a second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that the order impugned is bad in law because it is de hors the pleadings, or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against the provision of law or the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. Once the appellate court is satisfied, after hearing the appeal, that the appeal involves a substantial question of law, it has to formulate the question and direct issuance of notice to the respondent. (Para 30-31) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 857

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - Doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Moreover, a binding decision cannot lightly be ignored and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the parties to the same litigation and concerning the same issue, if rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Such a binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata. (Para 10) S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 861

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8), 156(3), 190(1)(c) - Where the Magistrate is of the opinion that the result of investigation in the form of report filed before him is not satisfactory, he may also order investigation in terms of Sections 156(3) and/or 173(8) CrPC or he may straightway take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC. (Para 11.2) Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 835

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1), 204 - Taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) of the Cr.P.C. and issue of process under Section 204 are judicial functions and require a judicious approach. This is a proposition not only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice, as a person against whom no offence is disclosed cannot be put to any harassment by the issue of process. Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial mind to the material before the court to determine if there is ground for proceedings against the accused. When the allegations made in the complaint are found to be too vague and general without giving any material particulars of the offence alleged against the accused then the order of the Magistrate issuing process on the basis of the complaint would not be justified as there must be material prima facie, for issuance of process. We have our own doubts whether even the verification of the original complainant on oath was recorded before taking cognizance and issuing process. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 199 - A person falling under the category of persons mentioned in sub­section (2) of Section 199 can either take the route specified in sub­section (4) or take the route specified in sub­Section (6) of Section 199 - The right of an individual is saved, under sub­section (6), even if he falls under the category of persons mentioned in subsection (2) - The special procedure is in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always had as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to official discharge of his duties. (Para 50-51) Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 853

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 199(6), 237, 250 - Whether the protection available under Section 237 of the Code to the accused, will be lost if the public servant avoids the special procedure and lodges a complaint individually? - Whenever a person is prosecuted by a public servant in his individual capacity before a Magistrate by virtue of Section 199(6), the accused can always fall back upon Section 250, for claiming compensation on the ground that the accusation was made without reasonable cause. (Para 52-55) Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 853

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reason. (Para 28 -30) Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 309 - Examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following. In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be. Mukesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 826

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Transfer Petition filed by a woman-accused seeking transfer of cheque bounce complaint - A complaint under Section 138 cannot be transferred as per the convenience of the accused - Being a woman and senior citizen, she can always seek exemption from personal appearance - Directed Trial Judge to favourable consider application if made by the petitioner for grant of exemption - The Trial Judge shall compel the petitioner to appear only when her presence is absolutely mandatory for the conduct of the trial. S. Nalini Jayanthi v. M. Ramasubba Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 880

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. X v. Arun Kumar C.K., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Anticipatory bail granted to the accused only till framing of the charge - It is the impugned order which would reflect the mind of the judge as to what were the peculiar facts and circumstances which warranted limiting the anticipatory bail for a particular period. The perusal of the entire order would reveal that there is no discussion at all with regard to the same - Part of the order which restricts the anticipatory bail upto framing of charge is quashed and set aside. Tarun Aggarwal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 885

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Petitions seeking relief of pre arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings - Supreme Court sets aside condition imposed by the Jharkhand High Court of depositing 7.5 Lakhs as "victim compensation" while granting pre-arrest bail. Udho Thakur v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Accused cannot be made to pay ad interim victim compensation by the High Court in the exercise of their inherent powers as a precondition to get anticipatory bail without reasonable justification – Held, there was no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail – Appeal allowed. Ravikant Srivastava @ Ravi Kant Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 877

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138,139 - Whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a matter of evidence and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the accused under Section 482 of the CrPC. Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 879

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 482 and 173(8) - In an appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation - The provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice - The question of opportunity of hearing in such matters would always depend upon the given set of facts and circumstances of the case - While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further investigation or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted. (Para 13, 18) Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 835

Compassionate Appointment - After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided - The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. [Para 9.1, 9.2] Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Anusree K.B., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819

Compassionate Appointment - Married daughter can't be held to be dependent of mother for the purpose of compassionate appointment- The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. (Para 7, 7.1) State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820

Compassionate Appointment - Qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment is considered. (Para 6-7) Delhi Jal Board v. Nirmala Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 863

Constitution of India, 1950 - Court's duty to protect constitutional values - Court is charged with the duty to protect the fundamental rights and also preserve the constitutional values and the secular democratic character of the nation and in particular, the rule of law. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872

Constitution of India, 1950 - Part IXB inserted by the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 would not be applicable to the local co-operative societies, whereas the same would be applicable to the multi-State co-operative societies and the societies within the Union territories. (Para 45A-45C) Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. v. Aloke Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 394 - Principles of Section 394, Cr.P.C. would apply to appeals filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 14) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - Circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by Supreme Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court summarised. (Para 45 - 46) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - Though in cases of concurrent findings of fact, this Court will ordinarily not interfere with the said findings, this Court is empowered to do so if in case it finds inter alia, misreading of the evidence or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse. (Para 55) Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Powers under Article 142 can be exercised to reduce the amount of interest awarded. [Para 18] Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22(5) - Right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) - Refusal to supply the documents requested by the detenu or supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution - Whether an opportunity has been afforded to make an effective representation always depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 17-21) State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 862

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Mandamus - A writ of mandamus can be issued where the Authority has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it or has exercised such a discretion malafidely or on an irrelevant consideration. Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 852

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Quo Warranto - The writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law. (Para 28) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 115 - Appeal against HC order dismissing writ petition under Article 227 on the ground of availability of remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC - Allowed - Where there is availability of remedy under Section 115 CPC normally the petition under Article 227 would not lie - But that does not mean that writ petition under Article 227 shall not be maintainable at all - There is a difference and distinction between the entertainability and maintainability - The High Court ought to have converted the writ petition under Article 227 into revision petition under Section 115 CPC and ought to have considered the same in accordance with law and on its own merits, rather than permitting the writ petitioners to file a fresh revision application under Section 115 of the CPC. It would unnecessary increase the burden of the Court. (Para 3-4) Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal v. Sudheer Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 864

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - The remedy under Article 227 available is a constitutional remedy under the Constitution of India which cannot be taken away - In a given case the Court may not exercise the power under Article 227 if the Court is of the opinion that the aggrieved party has another efficacious remedy available under the CPC. However, to say that the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not be maintainable at all is not tenable. (Para 3) Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal v. Sudheer Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 864

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance claims - An insurance company cannot take a defense which did not form the basis of repudiation of the claim. (Para 13-15) JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 884

Co-operative Societies - Once a person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the Society as a body. (Para 53) Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. v. Aloke Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Co-operative Societies - West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940 - It is not open to the Court to sit over the commercial wisdom of the General Body as an Appellate Authority. Merely because one single member in minority disapproves of the decision, that cannot be the basis to negate the decision of the General Body, unless it is shown that the decision was the product of fraud or misrepresentation or was opposed to some statutory prohibition -Co-operative Society is to function democratically and the internal democracy of a society, including resolutions passed in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and the bye-laws have to be respected and implemented. (Para 54) Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. v. Aloke Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala); Section 40(1)(a) - A member of the society executing the document in his own capacity or in the capacity of a Guardian or a minor shall not be entitled to the benefit of remission of stamp duty - The benefit is available only in respect of instruments executed by or on behalf of a society or by an officer or member thereof and instrument so executed should be relating to the business of the society. (Para 8-9) Kerala Land Reforms & Development Co-operative Society Ltd. v. District Registrar (General), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 882

Criminal Cases - Disposal of criminal cases by resorting to the triple method of plea bargaining, compounding of offences and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Guidelines issued. Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 889

Criminal Trial - Being a relative of the deceased is no reason to discredit their version. (Para 19) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - False Explanation - Before a false explanation can be used as an additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (i) Various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (ii) Such circumstances points to the guilt of the accused as reasonable defence. (iii) The circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation - If the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled only then a Court use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend as assurance to the Court and not otherwise - Prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. (Para 96-98) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. (Para 47 - 49) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance - Motive for commission of offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of offence is available - Failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. - Absence of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused. (Para 87) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Non ­explanation of the injuries - Any non ­explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non­ explanation may assume greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. (Para 115) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles to be followed - 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (Para 46) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Early conclusion of the trial would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery system. The trial must come to its logical end at the earliest. Gali Janardhan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 829

Criminal Trial - Extra judicial confession - A weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance like the case in hand. The Courts generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession. (Para 85) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Extra judicial confession - A weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance like the case in hand. The Courts generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession - Admissibility and evidentiary value of extra judicial confession. (Para 54 - 58) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Criminal Trial - Factors responsible for witnesses turning hostile - Referred to Ramesh v. State of Haryana (2017) 1 SCC 529 - Witnesses who know the deceased victim may turn hostile because they wish to move on with their lives. Testifying as to the circumstances surrounding the rape and death of a loved one can be a deeply traumatizing event, which is only compounded by the slow pace of the criminal justice system. (Para 53-54) State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890

Criminal Trial - The Courts have to label as to which category a discrepancy can be categorized. The material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution's case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so. (Para 52) Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856

Criminal Trial - When the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. (Para 48) Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856

Death Penalty - Asessment as regards conduct of the accused, if made before the final submissions are advanced, will go a long way in rendering assistance- Court passed directions so that psychological evaluation of the concerned convict can be ascertained. Prakash Vishwanath Darandale v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 876

DNA Test for paternity – Supreme Court sets aside HC direction for DNA test of children in a matrimonial disputes - SC cites Right to Privacy – Merely because something is permissible under the law cannot be directed as a matter of course, to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a person – Important question is not only whether it would amount to testimonial compulsion – Also encompasses right to privacy – Test could be prejudicial to the privacy rights of persons subjected to it – May also be prejudicial to future of children subjected to the test. (Para 9) Inayath Ali & Anr. v. State of Telengana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 869

Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 34 - Merely reproducing the words of the section without a clear statement of fact as to how and in what manner a director of the company was responsible for the conduct of 20 the business of the company, would not ipso facto make the director vicariously liable. (Para 18) Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 125 - The existence of a 'substantial question of law' arising from the judgment of the APTEL is sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 125 of the 2003 Act. (Para 27) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 857

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 64 - It is not permissible to amend the tariff order made under Section 64 during the 'truing up' exercise - 'Truing up' exercise cannot be done to retrospectively change the methodology/principles of tariff determination and re­opening the original tariff determination order thereby setting the tariff determination process to a naught at 'trueup' stage - A tariff order is quasi - ­judicial in nature which becomes final and binding on the parties unless it is amended or revoked under Section 64(6) or set aside by the Appellate Authority - At at the stage of 'truing up', the DERC cannot change the rules/methodology used in the initial tariff determination by changing the basic principles, premises and issues involved in the initial projection of ARR. (Para 51-54) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 857

Environment - The conservation of forest plays a vital role in maintaining the ecology. It acts as processors of the water cycle and soil and also as providers of livelihoods. As such, preservation and sustainable management of forests deserve to be given due importance in formulation of policies by the State. (Para 101) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 868

Evidence Act 1872; Section 112 - DNA test - SC sets aside direction for DNA test of children - notes that children were not parties to the proceedings - the test will have the potential of exposing them to inheritance related complication. Section 112 of the Evidence Act, gives a protective cover to children from allegations of this nature. (Para 7) Inayath Ali & Anr. v. State of Telengana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 869

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 - Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it. (Para 64-68) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - How the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 - If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. (Para 53) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - How the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 - Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. (Para 78-87) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 30 - Confession of a co­accused could only be considered but could not be relied on as substantive evidence - Fine distinction between an extra judicial confession being a corroborative piece of evidence and a confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act being treated as a substantive piece of evidence. (Para 66 -68) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Although a dying declaration ought to ideally be recorded by a Magistrate if possible, it cannot be said that dying declarations recorded by police personnel are inadmissible for that reason alone. The issue of whether a dying declaration recorded by the police is admissible must be decided after considering the facts and circumstances of each case - The fact that the dying declaration is not in the form of questions and answers does not impact either its admissibility or its probative value - There is no rule mandating the corroboration of the dying declaration through medical or other evidence, when the dying declaration is not otherwise suspicious. (Para 41-44, 50-52) State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. (Para 74) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - The conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Para 89) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Gift Tax Act, 1958 - Valuation of shares for the purpose of gift tax must take into consideration the limitations and restrictions. Deputy Commissioner of Gift Tax v. BPL Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 848

Hate Speech - Supreme Court directs Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi Governments to take suo motu action against hate speech crimes without waiting for formal complaints irrespective of the religion of the offender - Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall ensure that immediately as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872

Hijab Ban Case - Appeals against Karnataka High Court judgment which upheld Hijab Ban in some schools/pre-university colleges - In view of the divergent views expressed by the Bench, the matter placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench. Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 842

Income Tax Act 1961 - Tax exemption for charitable purposes - Section 2(15) - An assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself in any trade, commerce or business, or provide service in relation thereto for any consideration-However, in the course of achieving the object of general public utility, the concerned trust, society, or other such organization, can carry on trade, commerce or business or provide services in relation thereto for consideration, provided that the activities of trade, commerce or business are connected to the achievement of its objects of GPU; and the receipts do not exceed the quantified limit. (Para 253) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865

Income Tax Act 1961 - Tax exemption for charitable purposes -Section 2(15)-for achieving a general public utility object, if the charity involves itself in activities, that entail charging amounts only at cost or marginal mark up over cost, and also derive some profit, the prohibition against carrying on business or service relating to business is not attracted - if the quantum of such profits do not exceed 20% of its overall receipts. (Para 172) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865

Income Tax Act 1961; Section 2(15) - Amounts charged by statutory authorities, corporations, statutory regulatory authorities for their public activities can't be treated as commercial receipts-However, if the amounts collected are significantly higher than the costs incurred, it can be treated as commercial income. (Para 253) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865

Income Tax Act 1961; Section 2(15) - Tax exemption for professional bodies like ICAI- bodies which regulate professions and are created by or understatutes which are enjoined to prescribe compulsory courses to be undergone before the individuals concerned is entitled to claim entry into the profession or vocation, and also continuously monitor the conduct of its members do not ipsofacto carry on activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or services in relation thereto-However, this is subject to the caveat that if the assessing authorities discern that certain kinds of activities carried out by such regulatory body involved charging of fees that are significantly higher than the cost incurred (with a nominal mark-up) or providing other facilities or services such as admission forms, coaching classes, registration processing fees, etc., at markedly higher prices, those would constitute commercial or business receipts. (Para 196, 253) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(23C) - The requirement of the charitable institution, society or trust etc., to 'solely' engage itself in education or educational activities, and not engage in any activity of profit, means that such institutions cannot have objects which are unrelated to education - All objects of the society, trust etc., must relate to imparting education or be in relation to educational activities - Where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such institutions would not be entitled to approval under Section 10(23C) of the IT Act. At the same time, where surplus accrues in a given year or set of years per se, it is not a bar, provided such surplus is generated in the course of providing education or educational activities. (Para 60, 76-a,b) New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 859

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(23C) - Wherever registration of trust or charities is obligatory under state or local laws, the concerned trust, society, other institution etc. seeking approval under Section 10(23C) should also comply with provisions of such state laws. This would enable the Commissioner or concerned authority to ascertain the genuineness of the trust, society etc.). (Para 73,76-g) New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 859

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 36(1)(va), 43B - The non-obstante clause under Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction - There is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz. the employers' contribution and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer - the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. (Para 53-54) Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 838

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka); Section 28(1), 41 - Power to acquire land beyond development by KIADB - Regulations framed by the Board under Section 41 also contemplates acquiring land for the purpose of allotment to a single company to set up an industry. (Para 37-39) M.S.P.L. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka); Sections 1, 3, 28 - Appeal against judgment of Karnataka High Court quashing the notifications for acquisition of land - Allowed - Division Bench committed an error in quashing the acquisition proceedings. M.S.P.L. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 66A - No one should be prosecuted under Section 66A of the Act, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court in 2015 in the Shreya Singhal Case. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 846

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Supreme Court holds that there is no ground to review the the judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587 which held that the National Company Law Tribunal has discretion to not admit the insolvency application filed by a financial creditor even if the corporate debtor is in default. Axis Bank Ltd v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 7(5) - No ground to review judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Limited which held that adjudicating authority has discretion under Section 7(5) - Apprehension that the judgment will undermine the objectives of IBC is misconceived - Observations were made in the context of the case at hand. Axis Bank Ltd v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Interpretation of Statutes - A government cannot misuse the "removal of difficulty clause" to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation - Where there is a specific provision, it is not open to the State government to conjure up a lacunae or omission and purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties. (Para 48- 49) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Interpretation of Statutes - A statute must be read to avoid a construction which would make certain provisions or terms meaningless or redundant. (Para 41) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Interpretation of Statutes - Heydon's/Mischief Rule. (Para 53) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 866

Interpretation of Statutes - If the language is unambiguous and capable of one meaning, that alone should be applied and not any other, based under surmise that the Parliament or the legislature intended it to be so. In other words, it is only in cases of ambiguity that the court can use other aids to discern the true meaning. Where the statute is clear and the words plain, the legislation has to be given effect in its own terms - It is only when the application of literal interpretation gives rise to an absurdity, should the interpretation be expansive. (Para 52-54) New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 859

Interpretation of Statutes - If the plain meaning of the provision does not admit of any ambiguity no other external aid will be necessary to interpret the provision except to give it the plain meaning. (Para 9) Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Interpretation of Statutes - Purposive Construction - A statute has to be construed according to the intent that makes it and it is always the duty of the Court to act upon the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, it is always desirable of the Court to choose the interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. (Para 43-46) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. National Stock Exchange Members Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 840

Interpretation of Statutes - Purposive Interpretation - While interpreting the provisions of the statute, the court has to prefer an interpretation which advances the purpose of the statute - Even in relation to a penal statute, any narrow and pedantic, literal and lexical construction may not always be given direct effect and the interpretation has to be preferred with regard to the subject matter of the offence and the object of law it seeks to achieve. (Para 66-80) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 866

Interpretation of Statutes - The Courts should refrain itself from expressing value judgments and policy views in order to interpret statutes. Statutes are to be read in their plain language and not otherwise. (Para 45) M.S.P.L. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Interpretation of Statutes - The object of a proviso is to except from the main provision something enacted in the substantive clause. It cannot however, by itself be read as a substantive provision - The scope of a proviso. (Para 55-58) New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 859

Judgments - It is well settled that judgments and observations in judgments are not to be read as provisions of statute. Judicial utterances and/or pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of a particular case - To interpret words and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for the Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions. The words of Judges interpreting statutes are not to be interpreted as statutes. Axis Bank Ltd v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties. No contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. (Para 5.2) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 818

Land Acquisition - When the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities. (Para 14) Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin v. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 827

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 11A, 17(3A) - The provision contained in Section 11A shall be applicable to cases in which the acquiring authority has not complied with the requirement of Section 17 (3A) by tendering and paying eighty per centum of the estimated compensation before taking possession since possession in such cases cannot be considered to be taken in accordance with law and the vesting is not absolute - If the requirement is complied and possession is taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there is need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigour of Section 11A will not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case is to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation - The decision in this case if it arises for consideration in any other case under Act, 1894 or any other enactment relating to land acquisition containing pari materia provisions shall be applied only prospectively and cases which have attained finality shall not be reopened. (Para 25-26) Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 17 - (1) payment of 80% (2) taking over possession thereafter and (3) vesting of land in the government take place in a sequence. Absent anyone of these in the sequence, the emergency provision fails - It cannot be understood as providing any discretion to the acquiring authority. (Para 12) Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections 11A and 6 - If the award is not made within the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6, the entire proceedings will stand lapsed. The only option for the acquiring authority if the land is still required for the public purpose is to notify afresh from the stage of issuing notification under Section 4. The computation of two years would however exclude the period if the process was stayed by an order of the Court. (Para 11) Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Land Revenue Code (Maharashtra) - Maharashtra Government cannot insist on NOC from it for registering the subsequent transfer of flats built on a land leased to a developer - State government is not entitled to a premium when the land is not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who in turn formed a Co-operative Society-1999 and 1983 Resolutions are applicable to the co-operative societies to whom the government lands are sanctioned on concessional rates-Since the land was not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Co-operative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society. (Paras 13, 14 & 15) State of Maharashtra v. Aspi Chinoy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 825

Legal Aid - What is meant by the duty of the State to ensure a fair defence to an accused is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake. It has to be the provision of a counsel who defends the accused diligently to the best of his abilities - The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent - In Sessions trials, more particularly relating to serious offences involving severe sentences, appoint experienced lawyers who had conducted such cases in the past. It is desirable that in such cases senior advocate practising in the trial court shall be requested to conduct the case himself or herself on behalf of the undefended accused or at least provide good guidance to the advocate who is appointed as amicus curiae or an advocate from the legal aid panel to defend the case of the accused persons. (Para 117-126) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Limitation Act 1963; Section 17 - By such a clever drafting and using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation-Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. (Para 7.8) C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822

Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 168 - the Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor only in a case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed, particularly when it was nobody's case that the deceased was a labourer as presumed by the High Court. (Para 9) Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 821

Motor Accident Compensation - Dependents entitled to compensation for loss of income even if businesses & properties of deceased were bequeathed to them. [Para 14,17 & 22] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Motor Accident Compensation - Documents such as income tax returns and audit reports are reliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased. [Para 14] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Motor Accident Compensation - Entire amount under 'Income from House Property and Agricultural Land' need not be deducted merely because properties have been bequeathed to dependents- compensation towards loss of managerial skills can be awarded. [Para 22] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Motor Accident Compensation - Mere fact that the Deceased's share of ownership in these businesses ventures was transferred to the Deceased's minor children just before his death or to the dependents after his death is not a sufficient justification to conclude that the benefits of these businesses continue to accrue to his dependents. [Para 17] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Fixing of notional income - In the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased - Referred to Chandra Alias Chanda Chandraram and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors; (2022) 1 SCC 198 - High Court fixed the notional income of the Deceased driver as 10,000/- As per notification issued under Kerala Fair Wages Act, a 'driver' in Kerala earned a minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015 - Thus Supreme Court fixed income of the Deceased notionally at Rs. 15,600/- per month. (Para 19-22) Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Multiplier of victims upto the age group of 15 years should be taken as '15' - When there is clear prohibition under Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 for engagement of children and the definition of "child" therein takes in children who have not completed their fourteenth year of age within its fold, there is certainly justification for selecting a lower multiplier of '15' in the case of victims belonging to the age group upto 15 years. (Para 10.1.4) Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 892

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Objective formula for calculating just compensation - Three factors that need to be established are: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents - The issues that are to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are: (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. (Para 17-18) Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - the age of the deceased and not the age of the dependents in case of the death of a bachelor is to be the basis for multiplier. Giasi Ram v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 828

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation Claims - There is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. (Para 14) Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 168 - Motor Accident Claims - compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is a fact-dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious - Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. [Paras 11, 12] K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 168 - Motor Accident Compensation Claims - While determining compensation under the Act, section 168 of the Act makes it imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just. The Act being a social welfare legislation operates through economic conception in the form of compensation, which renders way to corrective justice. Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bring equality between the wrongdoer and the victim, whenever the equality gets disturbed by the wrongdoer's harm to the victim. It also endeavors to make good the human suffering to the extent possible and to also save families which have lost their breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy. Adequate compensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation. Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding adequate compensation on a case­to­case basis. However, it is imperative for the courts to grant such compensation which has nexus to the actual loss. (Para 16) Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858

Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Delhi); Sections 42(f), 390 391 - Until and unless the conditions as mentioned in Section 391 are satisfied and it is specifically found that any burning or burial ground has become offensive, or dangerous to the health of the persons residing at neighbourhood, the burning and burial ground can be ordered to be closed with the previous sanction of the Standing Committee - Subsequent settlement of residents in city/town by itself not a ground to shift cremetorium - It is the duty cast upon the Municipal Corporation to make provision for regulation of places for the disposal of dead and the provision of maintenance of said places is an obligatory function of Municipal Corporation. (Para 5-6) South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Federation of Residents Welfare Association Vasant Kunj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 883

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 15 - Once a Chemical Examiner establishes that the seized 'poppy straw' indicates a positive test for the contents of 'morphine' and 'meconic acid', it is sufficient to establish that it is covered by subclause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act and no further test would be necessary for establishing that the seized material is a part of 'papaver somniferum L'. In other words, once it is established that the seized 'poppy straw' tests positive for the contents of 'morphine' and 'meconic acid', no other test would be necessary for bringing home the guilt of the accused under the provisions of Section 15 of the 1985 Act. (Para 91) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 866

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 15 - For bringing home the guilt of the accused, it will be necessary to establish that the seized material collected is any part of 'opium poppy' except the seeds. (Para 29) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 866

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 37, 67 - Appeal against Bail granted to NDPS accused - Allowed - Validity and scope of statements under Section 67- Referred to Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 - The rigour of law lay down in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail - Referred to State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69 - However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, the matter stands on a different footing - In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 878

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Appeal against NGT order that directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to not proceed with the proposal for establishment of new wood-based industries till an assessment of the actual availability of timber was done - Allowed - The Courts should not enter into an area that is the domain of the experts. FSI, an expert body, had arrived at its estimation based on the scientific method - NGT could not have sat in appeal over the opinion of the expert - While protecting the environment, the need for sustainable development has also to be taken into consideration and a proper balance between the two has to be struck - NGT has also failed to take into consideration the stand taken by the MOEFCC, which supported the stand of the State which had emphasized many advantages of granting new licenses to WBIs - While setting aside NGT orders, the following directions are issued (1) while granting permission for felling trees of the prohibited species, it should strictly ensure that the permission is granted only when the conditions specified in the Notification dated 7th January 2020 are satisfied. (2) The State Government shall also ensure that when such permissions are granted to the applicants, the applicants scrupulously follow the mandate in the said notification of planting 10 trees against 1 and maintaining them for five years. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 868

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - When the credentials and bonafides of a litigant approaching the NGT are seriously raised, the same cannot be ignored Before a litigant is permitted to knock the doors of justice and seek orders which have far reaching effects of affecting the employment of thousands of persons, stopping investment in the State, prejudicing the interests of the farmers; the credentials and bonafides of the applicants must be tested. (Para 98-99) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 868

NEET - Post Graduate Medical Courses - Admission - The schedule for admission to the post­graduate medical courses must be followed strictly leaving no discretion to any authority to permit admissions over the cut­off date under schedule for admission to post­graduate medical courses. (Para 20) Board of Governors of Medical Council of India v. Dr. Priyambada Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 855

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation - If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque - When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted. (Para 30) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Supreme Court imposes Rs 5 lakhs cost on convict who agreed to settle the dispute only after 10 years of litigation - Court cites wastage of precious judicial time and tyranny of justice caused to complainant. Santhosh J. v. V. Narasimha Murthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 874

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Though a post- dated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing, for the offence to be attracted, the cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. If there has been a material change in the circumstance such that the sum in the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of maturity or encashment, then the offence under Section 138 is not made out. (Para 16) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 56 - When a part- payment of the debt is made after the cheque was drawn but before the cheque is encashed, such payment must be endorsed on the cheque under Section 56 of the Act. The cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part payment. If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence under Section 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. (Para 29) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 118, 138, 139 - Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for the accused to dislodge the legal presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 resply of the N.I. Act. Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 879

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Object of Section 149 is to make specific that person whose case comes within its gamut cannot be permitted to put forth a defence that he did not, with his own hand, commit the offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. (Para 17) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Penal Code, 1860; Section 294 - Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others - The test of obscenity under Section 294(b) is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - In order to make culpable homicide as murder the act by which death is caused should fall not only under any one or more of clauses firstly to fourthly under Section 300, IPC but they should also not fall under any of the five exceptions to Section 300, IPC. (Para 21) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302 - Appeal against Madras HC Judgment acquitting murder accused - Allowed - Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness - There can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. State v. Laly @ Manikandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 851

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302 - Murder case - Trial Court convicted accused for alleged murder of his wife, four children and sentenced him to death - Allahabad High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed death sentence - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused - None of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the courts below, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302,149 - Conviction of one surviving accused (nine others died during pendency of appeal before HC and SC) under Section 302/149 upheld - The effect and impact of reduction of the number of convicts pending an appeal owing to the death of co-convicts is bound to be different from the effect and impact of reduction of the number of accused/convicts on account of acquittal - The meaning of abatement can only be taken in criminal proceedings as `discontinuation of such proceedings owing to the death of the accused/convict pending such proceedings' - The abatement is certainly different from acquittal. (Para 12-16) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, dramatically affecting the lives of families, friends and communities. However, the court of law while adjudicating is not to be guided by emotions of sentiments but the dictum is required to be based on analysis of facts and evidence on record. (Para 32) Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. (Para 36-38) Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834

Penal Code, 1860; Section 341 - Wrongful restraint - It has to be proved that there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Penal Code, 1860; Section 375 - Whether a woman is "habituated to sexual intercourse" or "habitual to sexual intercourse" is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC are present in a particular case. (Para 62) State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890

Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 - Defamation - The claim made by a person involved in politics that the answers provided by his rival in public office to the questions posed by him, will expose his scam, cannot be per se stated to be intended to harm the reputation of the person holding office. The statements such as "I will expose you", "I will expose your corrupt practices" and "I will expose the scam in which you are involved, etc." are not by themselves defamatory unless there is something more - Even if a person belonging to a political party had challenged a person holding public office by stating "I will expose your scam", the same may not amount to defamation. Defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general. The essential ingredient of Section 499 is that the imputation made by the accused should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. (Para 60-64) Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 853

Pleadings - Fraud must be specifically pleaded - Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. (Para 7.8) C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822

Practice and Procedure - Appeal against Gujarat HC order in a dispute between Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZL) and Central Warehousing Corporation - Allowed - When an issue involved the balancing of interests of a statutory Corporation and a private company, the approach of the High Court ought to have been a balanced one. The High Court ought to have taken into consideration that, unless all the three conditions were complied with, the interest of the appellant-CWC, which is a statutory Corporation, could not have been safeguarded. If a settlement was to be arrived at, unless the same was found to be in the interest of both the parties, it could not have been thrust upon a statutory Corporation to its detriment and to the advantage of a private entity. Central Warehouse Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZL), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Practice and Procedure - It does not augur well for the Union of India to speak in two contradictory voices. The two departments of the Union of India cannot be permitted to take stands which are diagonally opposite - Union of India to evolve a mechanism to ensure that whenever such conflicting stands are taken by different departments, they should be resolved at the governmental level itself. (Para 52-53) Central Warehouse Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZL), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason. The competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act - Upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court and seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears. (Para 37-38) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC is only advisory. It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority. The final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of independent mind - There is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant. (Para 18) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Section 16(1)(a)(i) – Section 2(ia)(m) – Definition of Adulteration – Proviso – Public Analyst report must examine whether primary foods did not meet prescribed standards or had constituents in quantities outside the permissible threshold as a result of inescapable natural causes – Whether proviso is attracted, has to be seen – Held, – There was no whisper in the complaint or in the evidence as to whether the case would fall under the proviso – Questions such as whether increase in moisture content due to natural causes, unsatisfactory milk fat content due to quality of milk, not examined by Public Analyst – Therefore, appeal allowed and conviction of sweetmeat shop under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(ia)(m) for allegedly selling "adulterated" paneer set aside. Bhattacharjee Mahasya v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 873

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. (Para 21) State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 862

Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Money laundering is an independent offence. (Para 7) Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 867

Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Protective order passed against one investigating agency cannot operate against another investigating agency even if there are factual similarities in allegations- Interim protection granted against coercive action by the CBI cannot operate against ED. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 867

Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - While testing the legality of an arrest made by an agency otherwise empowered to take into custody a person against whom such agency considers subsistence of prima facie evidence of money laundering, we do not think a general protective order directed at another investigating agency could have insulated the petitioner from any coercive action in another proceeding stated by a different agency, even if there are factual similarities vis-à-vis the allegations. (Para 7) Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 867

Promissory Estoppel - There can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions - Only exception with regard to applicability of the doctrine of estoppel is where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. (Para 54) Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 852

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Appeal against Kerala HC order which granted conditional anticipatory bail to POCSO Accused who allegedly sexually assaulted his minor neice - Allowed - The fact that the victim – girl is traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent especially reflected through Section 29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre­arrest bail. X v. Arun Kumar C.K., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Jammu and Kashmir - State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 - The provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable with respect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990. (Para 5.2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nisar Ahmed Ganai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 837

Secularism & Fraternity - The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and the integrity of the country is the guiding principle enshrined in the Preamble. There cannot be fraternity unless members of community drawn from different religions or castes of the country are able to live in harmony. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 12(1) - Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 - Stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1992 in reference to each certificate of registration from SEBI in terms of the computation prescribed under Circular dated 28th March, 2002 and fee is to be paid as a guiding principle by the stock broker which is in conformity with the scheme of Regulations 1992 - After the expiry of five financial years from the date of initial registration, in reference to the stock exchange, the fee has to be deposited for the purpose of sixth financial year to keep his registration in force. (Para 47-48) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. National Stock Exchange Members Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 840

Service Law - Railway Employees - The employees working under the same employer – Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment - Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to have 50% of their services rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits. Union of India v. Munshi Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 891

Two Finger Test - The "two-finger test" or pre vaginum test must not be conducted - It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity - It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is sexually active - Referred to Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 643 - Directions issued to the Union Government as well as the State Governments - Ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals - Conduct workshops for health providers to communicate the appropriate procedure to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape - Review the curriculum in medical schools with a view to ensuring that the "two-finger test" or per vaginum examination is not prescribed as one of the procedures to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape. (Para 61-66) State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890

UGC Regulations - Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. (Para 8.4) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871

UGC Regulations - Appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government has to be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of Vice Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. (Para 8.3) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871

UGC Regulations - Appointment of Vice Chancellor must be as per the UGC Regulations, even if they have not been specifically adopted by the State- In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail by applying the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject "education" is contained in the Concurrent List of Schedule VII of the Constitution. (Para 8, 8.4) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871

UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0 - Search Committee for selection of Vice-Chancellor must prepare a panel of 3 to 5 names-when only one name was recommended and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 held contrary to Regulations. (Para 8.10) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871

University Act, 1979 (Calcutta); Section 8 - Upheld Calcutta High Court order that set aside the decision of the State to re-appoint Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University - The State government could not have issued the order re-appointing the VC - The power of appointment including of reappointment is entrusted to the Chancellor and not to the State government. The amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a) cannot therefore be construed to mean that the power of reappointment has been taken away from the Chancellor and entrusted to the State government - Amended Section 8(2)(a) which provides for the re-appointment of a VC for another term does not require that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) has to be followed for re-appointment. (Para 29-57) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 - Vice Chancellor Appointment - Even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. (Para 56) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Punjab); Section 13(b) - Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab); Section 45 - Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act shall be applicable only in a case where the plaintiff wants to protect his possession on the basis of his name in the mutation record and/or revenue record. However, any dispute with respect to mutation entry can only be before the revenue authorities only. Ishwar v. Gram Panchayat Parli Khurd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 875

Words and expressions - 'Solely' - The term 'solely' is not the same as 'predominant / mainly', it means 'to the exclusion of all others'. (Para 49) New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 859

Words and Phrases - Appeal - An appeal is judicial examination of a decision of a subordinate court by a higher court to rectify any possible error(s) in the order under appeal. The law provides the remedy of an appeal in recognition of the fact that those manning the judicial tiers too may commit errors. (Para 28) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 857

Words and Phrases - Substantial Question of Law - The word 'substantial' as qualifying 'question of law' means, of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic. (Para 30) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 857

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 842
2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 865
3. Axis Bank Ltd v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817
4. Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. v. Aloke Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 849
5. Bharat P etroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nisar Ahmed Ganai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 837
6. Bhattacharjee Mahasya v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 873
7. Board of Governors of Medical Council of India v. Dr. Priyambada Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 855
8. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 857
9. C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822
10. Central Warehouse Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZL), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 839
11. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 838
12. Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830
13. Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 888
14. Delhi Jal Board v. Nirmala Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 863
15. Deputy Commissioner of Gift Tax v. BPL Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 848
16. Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 835
17. Divya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 892
18. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 867
19. Emaar India Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 823
20. Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824
21. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Anusree K.B, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819
22. Gali Janardhan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 829
23. Giasi Ram v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 828
24. Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854
25. Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 821
26. Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 852
27. Inayath Ali & Anr. v. State of Telengana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 869
28. Ishwar v. Gram Panchayat Parli Khurd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 875
29. Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 860
30. JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 884
31. K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816
32. Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin v. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 827
33. Kerala Land Reforms & Development Co-operative Society Ltd. v. District Registrar (General), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 882
34. Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833
35. M.S.P.L. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 886
36. Mahesh Govindji Trivedi v. Bakul Maganlal Vyas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 836
37. Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 853
38. Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 858
39. Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834
40. Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856
41. Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 841
42. Mukesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 826
43. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844
44. New Noble Educational Society v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 859
45. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 846
46. Prakash Vishwanath Darandale v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 876
47. Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871
48. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal v. Sudheer Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 864
49. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 818
50. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843
51. Ravikant Srivastava @ Ravi Kant Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 877
52. Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 889
53. Reserve Bank of India v. Big Kancheepuram Cooperative Town Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 850
54. S. Nalini Jayanthi v. M. Ramasubba Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 880
55. S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 861
56. Santhosh J. v. V. Narasimha Murthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 874
57. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. National Stock Exchange Members Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 840
58. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872
59. Siravarapu Appa Rao v. Dokala Appa Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 845
60. South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Federation of Residents Welfare Association Vasant Kunj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 883
61. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 866
62. State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890
63. State of Maharashtra v. Aspi Chinoy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 825
64. State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820
65. State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 862
66. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 868
67. State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831
68. State v. Laly @ Manikandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 851
69. Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887
70. Tarun Aggarwal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 885
71. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847
72. Thermax Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-1, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 881
73. Udho Thakur v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 815]
74. Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 878
75. Union of India v. Munshi Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 891
76. Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832
77. X v. Arun Kumar C.K., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870
78. Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 879