Supreme Court Complete Quarterly Digest-All Subjects- (July- September, 2022) (Citations 560 - 814)

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

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

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

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 17 - Power of CAT to punish for contempt - Central Administrative Tribunal Rules 13 & 15 - CAT cannot punish for contempt committed in the face of it without trial when the alleged contemnor denies charges - Procedure under Section 14(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act to be followed- CAT has no power of the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 14, 15 & 24) Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Even if an aspect with regard to 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims may/can be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, it is always advisable and appropriate that in cases of debatable and disputable facts, good reasonably arguable case, the same should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal. (Para 13) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11, 11(6A) - Though the Arbitral Tribunal may have jurisdiction and authority to decide the disputes including the question of jurisdiction and non­arbitrability, the same can also be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application if the facts are very clear and glaring and in view of the specific clauses in the agreement binding between the parties, whether the dispute is non­arbitrable and/or it falls within the excepted clause. Even at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, the Court may prima facie consider even the aspect with regard to 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims. (Para 13) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - It would not be open for the court in the proceedings under Section 34 or in the appeal under Section 37 to modify the award, the appropriate course to be adopted in such event is to set aside the award and remit the matter. (Para 40) National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - National Highways Act, 1956; Section 3G(5) - While examining the award within the parameters permissible under Section 34 of Page 39 of 73 Act, 1996 and while examining the determination of compensation as provided under Sections 26 and 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the concept of just compensation for the acquired land should be kept in view while taking note of the award considering the sufficiency of the reasons given in the award for the ultimate conclusion. (Para 24) National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7 - Parties to the contract are free to agree on applicability of (1) proper law of contract, (2) proper law of arbitration agreement and (3) proper law of the conduct of arbitration. Parties to the contract also may agree for matters excluded from the purview of arbitration - Unless the effect of agreement results in performance of an unlawful act, an agreement, which is otherwise legal, cannot be held to be void and is binding between the parties. (Para 13.3) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616

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

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

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 23(2A), 34 - Counter-claim of a party cannot be dismissed merely because the claims were not notified before invoking the arbitration. National Highway Authority of India v. Transstroy (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586

Arbitration and Conciliation Act; 1996; Section 11(6) - There cannot be two arbitration proceedings with respect to the same contract/transaction-in the present case, earlier the dispute was referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator passed an award on whatever the claims were made. Thereafter, a fresh arbitration proceeding was sought to be initiated with respect to some further claims, may be after final bill-The same is rightly refused (by the High Court) to be referred to arbitration in exercise of Section 11(6) of the Act. Tantia Constructions v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 624

Army Act, 1950 - Army Regulations - Regulation 349 - Pending the Court of Inquiry, an opportunity of hearing not required to be afforded before suspending Army officers - Under Regulation 349 also, there is no requirement of such a procedure to be followed. Col. Vineet Raman Sharda v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 606

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

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

Bail - Economic Offences - The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another - It is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. (Para 66) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

Bail - The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails. (Para 72-73(a)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

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

Carriage by Air Act, 1972; Rule 30 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 29(2) - Rule 30 expressly excludes the Limitation Act as provided in Section 29 - Rule 30 (2) does not enable applicability of exclusion of periods for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years. (Para 43) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

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

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

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

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

Child Custody - The question 'what is the wish/desire of the child' is different and distinct from the question 'what would be in the best interest of the child'. Certainly, the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to 'what would be in the best interest of the child' is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to part their ways as parthian shot they may level extreme allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy to have the custody of the child - Unless very serious, proven conduct which should make one of them unworthy to claim for custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely looking into the question as to, 'what would be the best interest of the child concerned' - Welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration. (Para 8) Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Civil Cases - Pleadings - Relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. (Para 15-18) Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - One First Appeal filed by defendant against a common judgment disposing two suits - An application (CLMA) seeking permission to file a single appeal assailing the common judgment alongwith two separate decrees filed - The first appeal admitted by High Court - A decade later, the High Court without passing any order on the said CLMA, at the time of hearing of the appeal, accepted the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of single first appeal without entering into the merits of the case - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the approach adopted by High Court is not correct, because on dismissal of the CLMA, the appellant might have had the opportunity to rectify the defect by way of filing separate appeal under Section 96 CPC challenging the same judgment with separate decree - Matter remanded to the High Court to decide the CLMA before deciding the preliminary objection of maintainability of one appeal. Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity. (Para 10) Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 10 - The principle that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus shall be applicable only in a case where parties sought to be added as defendants are necessary and / or proper parties. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and / or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus. (Para 9) Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order II Rule 2 - Constructive Res Judicata - The party claiming and raising the plea of constructive res judicata/Order II Rule 2 of the Code must place on record in evidence the pleadings of the previous suit and establish the identity of the cause of actions, which cannot be established in the absence of record of judgment and decree which is pleaded to operate as estoppel. (Para 33) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 - On setting aside the ex­parte judgment and decree, though the defendants who had not filed the written statement, can be permitted to participate in the suit and cross­examine the witnesses. (Para 3.1) Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579

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

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - If, by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment. It would also result in misjoinder of causes of action. (Para 8) Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585

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

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

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

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XII Rule 6 - The power to pass judgment on admissions is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right - The said power should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke it. (Para 16-18) Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 567

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

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

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XV Rule 5 - As per these provisions, in a suit by a lessor for eviction of a lessee after the determination of lease and for recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant is under the obligation: (1) to deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on or before the first hearing of the suit; and (2) to regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week of its accrual throughout the pendency of the suit. The consequence of default in making either of these deposits is that the Court may strike off his defence. The expression 'first hearing' means the date for filing written statement or the date for hearing mentioned in the summons; and in case of multiple dates, the last of them. The expression 'monthly amount due' means the amount due every month, whether as rent or damages for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent after making no other deduction except taxes, if paid to the local authority on lessor's account. It is, however, expected that before making an order striking off defence, the Court would consider the representation of the defendant, if made within 10 days of the first hearing or within 10 days of the expiry of one week from the date of accrual of monthly amount. (Para 9.1) Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XV Rule 5 - it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that by merely denying the title of plaintiff or relationship of landlord- tenant/lessor-lessee, a defendant of the suit of the present nature could enjoy the property during the pendency of the suit without depositing the amount of rent/damages. (Para 14) Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607

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

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 97 - The bona­fide purchaser of the suit property is not entitled objecting execution of the decree by the decree holder. (Para 15) Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 97-102 - Applications under Rule 97 and Rule 99 are subject to Rule 101 which provides for determination of questions relating to disputes as to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings or their representatives on an application made under Rule 97 or Rule 99. Effectively, the said Rule does away with the requirement of filing of fresh suit for adjudication of disputes. (Para 14, 16) Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 1 - 4 - While considering whether the suit/appeal has abated due to non­bringing the legal representatives of plaintiffs/defendants or not, the Court has to examine if the right to sue survives against the surviving respondents - Court has to consider the effect of abatement of the appeal against each of the respondents in case of multiple respondents. (Para 9- 9.2) Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - For res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality - Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit. The reason is that the first suit is not decided on merits - Conditions that must be satisfied to constitute a plea of res judicata laid down. (Para 30-31) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - To succeed and establish a prayer for res judicata, the party taking the said prayer must place on record a copy of the pleadings and the judgments passed, including the appellate judgment which has attained finality. (Para 32) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - When the suit was dismissed for technical reasons, which decision is not an adjudication on merits of the dispute that would operate as res judicata on the merits of the matter. (Para 32) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

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

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

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

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

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer - In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. (Para 9) NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 CPC is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - When two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions. (Para 10-11) NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 25 - Jurisdiction under Section 25 cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings- The plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending. (Para 4-5) Neilan International Co. Ltd. v. Powerica Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 566

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

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 - An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original court. Ordinarily, First appeal involves a re­hearing on law as well as on fact as invoked by an aggrieved person. The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and therein all questions of fact and law are open for consideration by re­appreciating the material and evidence. The first appellate court is required to address on all the issues and decide the appeal assigning valid reasons either in support or against by re­appraisal - It must record its findings dealing all the issues, considering oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. (Para 8) Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564

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

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

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 138 - Anticipatory Bail - Adverse order against third party by High Court in an anticipatory bail proceedings - It is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequences for the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified. Kanchan Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 640

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Limb of Article 21 - A duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the benefit of suspect. Such a right cannot be taken away even during any unforeseen circumstances. (Para 34) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 170 - Scope and ambit. (Para 36) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

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

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - Issuing a warrant may be an exception in which case the Magistrate will have to give reasons. (Para 37) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 209 - Power of the Magistrate to remand a person into custody during or until the conclusion of the trial - Since the power is to be exercised by the Magistrate on a case-to-case basis, it is his wisdom in either remanding an accused or granting bail. (Para 38) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 226 - Before the Court proceeds to frame the charge against the accused, the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to give a fair idea to the Court as regards the case of the prosecution - Over a period of time, this provision has gone, in oblivion - It permits the prosecution to make the first impression regards a case, one which might be difficult to dispel. In not insisting upon its right under Section 226 of the CrPC, the prosecution would be doing itself a disfavour. (Para 20, 15) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227-228 - Cause of death of the deceased as assigned in the post mortem report being the "cardio respiratory failure" - Whether Trial Court could have discharged the accused from offence of murder - At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record - Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part II, IPC could have been decided by the trial court only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence, if any, comes on record. (Para 31) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - The prosecution case is necessarily limited by the charge. It forms the foundation of the trial which starts with it and the accused can justifiably concentrate on meeting the subject­ matter of the charge against him. He need not cross ­examine witnesses with regard to offences he is not charged with nor need he give any evidence in defence in respect of such charges - Where a higher charge is not framed for which there is evidence, the accused is entitled to assume that he is called upon to defend himself only with regard to the lesser offence for which he has been charged. It is not necessary then for him to meet evidence relating to the offences with which he has not been charged. He is merely to answer the charge as framed. The Code does not require him to meet all evidence led by prosecution. He has only to rebut evidence bearing on the charge. (Para 32) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - The purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial - Scope of Court's powers in respect of the framing of charges - Referred to Dipakbhai Jagdishchndra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 et al - The trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. (Para 21-27) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - There is an inbuilt element of presumption - Meaning of 'presumption'. (Para 28) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 309 - Bail - While it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. (Para 41) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 31 - Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has full discretion to order the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences. (Para 10-11) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563

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

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 374 (2) - Already admitted appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed on the ground that the accused is absconding. (Para 8) Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 374 (2) - Patna HC dismissed an appeal filed against conviction on the ground that appellant accused was absconding - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: The anguish expressed by the Division Bench about the brazen action of the appellant of absconding and defeating the administration of justice can be well understood. However, that is no ground to dismiss an appeal against conviction, which was already admitted for final hearing, for non-prosecution without adverting to merits -The impugned judgment set aside and the appeal remanded to the High Court for consideration on merits. Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. (Para 8) Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 386 (e) - Power to make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper would be available, of course in appropriate cases falling under any of the four categories of appeals mentioned under clauses (a) to (d) - The twin provisos under clause (d) carry restrictions in the matter of exercise of power under clause (e), with respect to enhancement of sentence and infliction of punishment - The power thereunder can be exercised only in rare cases. (Para 18) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 386 (e) - Rape convict kept in prison beyond the period of sentence - When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment - Compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act/omission committed by its officers in the course of employment. Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - "Presumption of innocence" and "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" may not be available to the appellant who has suffered a conviction - The power exercisable under Section 389 is different from that of the one either under Section 437 or under Section 439 of the Code, pending trial- Delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred under Section 436A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail. (Para 42-44) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397 - The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well­ founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case - While considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. (Para 8-9) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41 - Power of Arrest - Police officers have a duty to apply their mind to the case before them and ensure that the condition(s) in Section 41 are met before they conduct an arrest - Supreme Court reiterates the guidelines for arrest laid down in the 2014 Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. [Para 27, 28] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41 - Scope - Even for a cognizable offense, an arrest is not mandatory as can be seen from the mandate of this provision. (Para 21 -23) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) - Notwithstanding the existence of a reason to believe qua a police officer, the satisfaction for the need to arrest shall also be present - Both the elements of 'reason to believe' and 'satisfaction qua an arrest' are mandated and accordingly are to be recorded by the police officer. (Para 27) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 428 - Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence or imprisonment - it cannot be lost sight that when reference is made in a set off for adjustment of periods, the reference is to proceedings within the country - the criminal law of the land does not have any extra-territorial application - thus, what happens in another country for some other trial, some other detention, in our view, would not be relevant for the purposes of the proceedings in the country - accused cannot claim a double benefit under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C - i.e., the same period being counted as part of the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the former offence and also being set off against the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the latter offence as well. [Para 50, 52] Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - Section 436A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigor as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. (Para 64) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - The word 'shall' clearly denotes the mandatory compliance of this provision - There is not even a need for a bail application in a case of this nature particularly when the reasons for delay are not attributable against the accused - While taking a decision the public prosecutor is to be heard, and the court, if it is of the view that there is a need for continued detention longer than one-half of the said period, has to do so. However, such an exercise of power is expected to be undertaken sparingly being an exception to the general rule. (Para 47) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - The word 'trial' will have to be given an expanded meaning particularly when an appeal or admission is pending - In a case where an appeal is pending for a longer time, to bring it under Section 436A, the period of incarceration in all forms will have to be reckoned, and so also for the revision. (Para 46) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - Scope - The jurisdictional Magistrate who otherwise has the jurisdiction to try a criminal case which provides for a maximum punishment of either life or death sentence, has got ample jurisdiction to consider the release on bail. (Para 53-55, 58) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - The first proviso to Section 437 facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm - This has to be applied while considering release on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be. (Para 58) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail Jurisdiction - cannot implead third party to proceedings - especially those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration - application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the cause of the concerned applicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with offence already registered against him and apprehending his arrest in connection with such a case for extraneous reasons or otherwise - in such proceedings, the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the Court - no attempt should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party much less beyond the scope of the complaint/FIR in question - even if the application is entertained by the High Court, the High Court should exercise circumspection in dealing with the application only in respect of matters which are relevant to decide the application and not to over-state facts or other matters unrelated to the applicant before the Court. Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Appeal against High Court order that granted anticipatory bail on the ground that no recovery was effected from the accused and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused - Allowed -The respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances - Illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled :- a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record. b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim. c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified. g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case. (Para 30-34) Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Principles governing grant of bail - There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (Para 19-29) Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439(2) - Bail conditions -The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed. [Para 29] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 440 - It is a mandatory duty of the court to take into consideration the circumstances of the case and satisfy itself that it is not excessive. Imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of the release. In this connection, we would only say that Section 436, 437, 438 and 439 of the Code are to be read in consonance. Reasonableness of the bond and surety is something which the court has to keep in mind whenever the same is insisted upon, and therefore while exercising the power under Section 88 of the Code also the said factum has to be kept in mind. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 45 - Expert Witness - A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court. (Para 29) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature - In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society. (Para 38) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - An FIR under Section 306 IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else - Section 306 IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. (Para 50) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

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

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - No mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Para 7) State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scope and powers of High Court discussed - The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. In what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal complaint or criminal proceedings upon compromise can be exercised, would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 26-37) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The Criminal Proceeding cannot be quashed only because there is a settlement (including monetary settlement) between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. (Para 50) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The High Court has the inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order which was without jurisdiction or a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by the judgment and/or order. (Para 22) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 87-88 - Courts will have to adopt the procedure in issuing summons first, thereafter a bailable warrant, and then a non-bailable warrant may be issued- Issuing non-bailable warrants as a matter of course without due application of mind against the tenor of the provision. (Para 31-32) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 35 - The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can be said to be at par with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in so far as the powers to be exercised under the Cr.PC are concerned - The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in addition, may have administrative powers. (Para 10-10.1) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 227-228, 239-240, 245 - The case may be a sessions case, a warrant case, or a summons case, the point is that a prima facie case must be made out before a charge can be framed. (Para 19) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 41, 41A - The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail - The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 - Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action - State Governments and the Union Territories to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code. (Para 73 (b-d)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 437, 439 - Bail - Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application. (Para 73 (k)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 439, 161 - Bail - Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 440, 436A - Undertrials - The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release- While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind - An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court. (Para 73 (h-j)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 - There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. (Para 73 (e)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution of India - Writ of Habeas Corpus in Cases of Child's Custody - in a petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus in a matter relating to a claim for custody of a child, the principal issue which should be taken into consideration is as to whether from the facts of the case, it can be stated that the custody of the child is illegal - whether the welfare of the child requires that his present custody should be changed and the child be handed over to the care and custody of any other person - whenever a question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of the minor child, the matter is to be decided not on consideration of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the child - welfare is an all-encompassing word - It includes material welfare - while material considerations have their place they are secondary matters - more important are the stability and the security, the loving and understanding care and guidance, the warm and compassionate relationships that are essential for the full development of the child's own character, personality and talents - the employment of the writ of Habeas Corpus in child custody cases is not pursuant to, but independent of any statute - the jurisdiction exercised by the court rests in such cases on its inherent equitable powers and exerts the force of the State, as parens patriae, for the protection of its minor ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry and the result sought to be accomplished call for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity - The primary object of a Habeas Corpus petition, as applied to minor children, is to determine in whose custody the best interests of the child will probably be advanced. [Para 75, 80, 81, 86, 88, 89] Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeals - (i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. (ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. (iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. (iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it. (v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. (Para 23) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in criminal appeals by special leave discussed. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139A - Transfer - The likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer - Decision to transfer or not, to the Supreme Court or to one High Court, has to be taken with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances - No hard and fast rule or any structured formula is provided nor appears desirable. (Para 16) Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139A - Transfer Petitions seeking transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court - Dismissed - It appears just and proper that the petitions in the jurisdictional High Courts are decided with reference to their own factual background and the law applicable. Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - does not prohibit the classification of persons or class of persons provided it is not arbitrary - classification has to be reasonable - classification is permissible provided it is founded on an intelligible differentia - classification must have a rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by it - whether Haj Committees under the 2002 Act, can be treated as a separate class - on the ground both HGOs and the Haj Committee render service to the same class of persons, the classification made by treating the Haj Committee as a separate class, cannot be questioned - different classes of service providers rendering the same service to the same class of service recipients does not amount to discrimination - Haj Committee is a statutory committee which is entrusted with various functions for the welfare of Haj pilgrims - profit motive is completely absent in the case of the Haj Committee - Haj Committee constitutes a class in itself when it comes to rendering service to Haj pilgrims - it is a separate class as distinguished from HGOs. [Para 56, 60] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 141 - Precedent - A subsequent decision, in which the earlier decisions were considered and distinguished by this Court, the subsequent decision of this Court was binding upon the High Court - Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7.3) Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Court can grant appropriate relief when there is some manifest illegality or where some palpable injustice is shown to have resulted. Such a power can be traced either to Article 142 of the Constitution of India or powers inherent as guardian of the Constitution. (Para 19) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

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

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech and expression - Mohammed Zubair Case- Blanket bail orders to prevent the petitoner from tweeting cannot be imposed, merely because the case is based on tweets- Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech. According to the petitioner, he is a journalist who is the co-founder of a fact checking website and he uses Twitter as a medium of communication to dispel false news and misinformation in this age of morphed images, clickbait, and tailored videos. Passing an order restricting him from posting on social media would amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice his profession. [Para 30] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(d), 21 - When a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(1) (d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 17) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Personal Liberty and power of arrest - Arrest is not meant to be and must not be used as a punitive tool because it results in one of the gravest possible consequences emanating from criminal law: the loss of personal liberty. Individuals must not be punished solely on the basis of allegations, and without a fair trial. When the power to arrest is exercised without application of mind and without due regard to the law, it amounts to an abuse of power. The criminal law and its processes ought not to be instrumentalized as a tool of harassment. Section 41 of the CrPC as well as the safeguards in criminal law exist in recognition of the reality that any criminal proceeding almost inevitably involves the might of the state, with unlimited resources at its disposal, against a lone individual. [Para 27, 28] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right of Privacy - Right to be Forgotten - Right of Eraser - SC Registry directed to examine the issue and to work out how the name of both the petitioner and respondent No.1 along with address details can be masked so that they do not appear visible for any search engine. X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 618

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21 - Right to a fair and speedy trial is a facet of Article 21. (Para 40 -41) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Examining Constitutional validity of legislation - There is a presumption about the constitutionality of the law made by the Parliament/State Legislature - High Court should not deal with the question of validity in a cryptic/casual manner. (Para 14-16) State of Karnataka v. B.R. Muralidhar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Habeas Corpus - Child Custody - Parens patriae jurisdiction - Even while considering Habeas Corpus writ petition qua a minor, in a given case, the High Courts may direct for return of the child or decline to change the custody of the child taking into account the attending facts and circumstances. (Para 9) Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 restated. (Para 33) Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1973; Order IX Rule 13 - High Court not to entertain a revision application challenging the ex­parte judgment and decree as there was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available. (Para 6-7) Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - Tests of repugnancy - (1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by State Legislature occupy the same fieldRepugnancy may arise between two enactments even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field. (Para 32-33) All Kerala Distributors Association v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 639

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - An order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. [Para 45] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - The accused "does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency". [Para 51, 52] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, yet it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights - mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation [Para 44, 47, 50] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - When CBI enquiry can be directed - CBI inquiry can be directed only in rare and exceptional cases -such prayer should not be granted on mere asking - though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or re- investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment - the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties - one factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies". [Para 44, 47, 50] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 142 - Clubbing of FIRs - FIRs lodged against accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Section 420 IPC etc) and other State enactments in various states - Directs clubbing of all the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible - Multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion - Scope discussed. (Para 28-37) Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 21 and 300-A - Right to property had ceased to be a fundamental right. True that it is a human right as also constitutional right. Hence, compulsory acquisition by scrupulous adherence to the procedures authorised by law would not violate Article 300-A. (Para 26) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644

Constitution of India; 1950 Article 21 - A woman's right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution. She has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity. [Para 19] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Constitution of Special Courts - The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously. (Para 73 (g)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

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

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance Claims - The delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation could be one of the several factors for holding an insurer guilty of deficiency in service. But it cannot be the only factor. (Para 24) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashikala J. Ayachi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591

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

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

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

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - A person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court - The Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court. In Re Perry Kansagra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Vijay Mallya sentenced to 4 months imprisonment and Rs 2000 fine for contempt of court for disobedience of court orders- It is, well settled that apart from punishing the contemnor for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. The approach may require the court to pass directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by declaring said transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to see that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him- In a given case, to meet the ends of justice, the concept of purging of the contempt would call for complete disgorging of all the benefits secured as a result of actions which are found by the court to be contumacious. (Para 13) State Bank of India v. Dr. Vijay Mallya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Investigation and Trial - In case of grave and serious non compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society. (Para 39) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Trial - Post Mortem Report - The post mortem report of the doctor is his previous statement based on his examination of the dead body. It is not substantive evidence. The doctor's statement in court is alone the substantive evidence - It can be used only to corroborate his statement under Section 157, or to refresh his memory under Section 159, or to contradict his statement in the witness box under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 29) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Criminal Trial - Presumption of Innocence - Onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt before the Court -The agency to satisfy the Court that the arrest made was warranted and enlargement on bail is to be denied - Presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21, shall inure to the benefit of the accused. (Para 13-18) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

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

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

Criminal Trial - Test Identification Parade - When no TIP was conducted the first version of the complainant reflected in the FIR would play an important role - It is required to be considered whether in the FIR and/or in the first version the eye­ witness either disclosed the identity and/or description of the accused on the basis of which he can recollect at the time of deposition and identify the accused for the first time in the Court Room - It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court. (Para 6.2 - 6.7) Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582

Criminal Trial - The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission - Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604

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

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

Delegated Legislation - Delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making. A rule cannot rise above the source of power. (Para 12) Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614

Disability Pension - Army - the question of entitlement of soldiers to disability pension cannot be determined on the basis of medical examination conducted 20 years after his discharge. (Para 15) Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electricity - A basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived - Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. Dilip v. Satish, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570

Electricity - Appeal against High Court judgment which quashed FIR lodged by landlord against tenant alleging that he forged signature in a No objection certificate submitted before Electricity Board - Allowed - Completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 IPC- It cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Dilip v. Satish, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570

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

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 14(b) - the Rule is only attracted when a disease leads to an individual's discharge or death - such disease is ordinarily to be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service, but not always - in any case, the presumption under Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules is rebuttable - if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. [Para 20] Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 14(c) - If a disease were accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service - reason for disability or ailment - reliance would necessarily have to be placed on expert medical opinion based on an in depth study of the cause and nature of an ailment/disability including the symptoms thereof, the conditions of service to which the soldier was exposed and the connection between the cause/aggravation of the ailment/disability and the conditions and/or requirements of service. [Para 23, 25] Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

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

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

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

Evidence Act, 1872 - Ocular Evidence - Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case - In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. (Para 27-28) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872 - When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence. (Para 13) Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act - (1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave informations and (4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible - Two conditions for application – (1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. (Para 42) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

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

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

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

Evidence Act, 1872; 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 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 45-46) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - The conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Act, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Para 50) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8, 27 - Even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct would be relevant under Section 8 of the Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27. (Para 48) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Extradition Act, 1962 - Supreme Court holds that Union Government is bound to release Bombay Blast case convict Abu Salem by granting remission of him after he completes 25 years of sentence from the date on which he was detained for extradition to India (12.10.2005) as per the sovereign assurance given to Portugal. Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Extradition Act, 1962 - The separation of Judicial and Executive powers and the scheme of the Indian Constitution cannot bind the Indian courts in proceedings under the Extradition Act. Thus, the courts must proceed in accordance with law and impose the sentence as the law of the land requires, while simultaneously the Executive is bound to comply with its international obligations under the Extradition Act as also on the principle of comity of courts, which forms the basis of the extradition. [Para 39] Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

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

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

Finance Act, 1992 - Service Tax - Mega Exemption Notification no.25 of 2012–ST - Clause 5A - Services by a specified organisation in respect of a religious pilgrimage facilitated by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India, under bilateral arrangement - specified organisations - Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited, a Government of Uttarakhand Undertaking; or 'Committee' or 'State Committee' as defined in section 2 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 - Haj Group Organizers not specified organisation - not eligible for exemption [Para 46, 47, 50, 52] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Finance Act, 1992 - Service Tax - Mega Exemption Notification no.25 of 2012–ST - Clause 5(b) - Services by a person by way of conduct of any religious ceremony - It only exempts service provided by way of conduct of any religious ceremony - The service rendered by HGOs to Haj pilgrims is to facilitate them to reach at the destination to perform rituals/religious ceremonies. No religious ceremony is performed or conducted by the HGOs. [Para 51, 52] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

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

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 - "Forest" or "any forest land" - (1) Statutorily recognized forests such as reserved or protected forests to which clause (i) of Section 2 is applicable; (2) The forests as understood in accordance with dictionary sense and (3) Any area recorded as a forest in Government records. (Para 38) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 - The State Government or the competent authority cannot permit use for non-forest activities without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government - The power given to the Central Government under Section 2 must be exercised by adopting scientific and consistent yardsticks for applying the principles of sustainable development. (Para 36-37) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 (ii-iv) - The specific land in respect of which a special order under section 4 of PLPA has been issued will have all the trappings of a forest governed by clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act - Whether the special orders under Section 4 continue to be in force or not, the lands covered by the said notifications will continue to fall in the category of forests covered by Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. (Para 47 - 60) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(i) - State Government cannot exercise the power under Section 27 of the 1927 Forest Act of declaring that a particular land will cease to be a reserved forest unless there is prior approval from the Central Government. (Para 43) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(ii-iv) - Forest - Dictionary meaning - A large or extensive tract of land having a dense growth of trees, thickets, mangroves etc. A small isolated plot of land will not come within the ambit merely because there are some trees or thickets thereon, as opposed to extensive tract of land covered with dense growth of trees and underbrush or plants resembling a forest in profusion or lushness. (Para 40) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(ii-iv) - Government Records - A Government record is a record maintained by its various departments - Only the entries made after following due process can be a part of any Government record. Government records will include land or revenue records and the record of the forest department. (Para 41) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest Act, 1927 - Concept of forest discussed. (Para 26-30) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

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

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

Goods and Services Tax - Private Haj tour operators not entitled to claim GST exemption available for conducting religious ceremony - Haj Group Organizers are not performing any religious ceremony - HGOs can't claim parity with Haj Committee, which is a specified organization eligible for GST exemption for services in relation to pilgrimage. All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Goods and Services Tax - Supreme Court allows 2 months additional window from September 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022 to claim transitional credit - Directions issued. Union of India v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 628

Haj Pilgrims - Bifurcation of services rendered by the HGOs - cannot be bifurcated into two parts; services provided within taxable territory and those provided outside the taxable territory for the purpose of tax exemption - HGOs receive charges from Haj pilgrims for the entire package; it is not the case of the HGOs that they charge separately for different services forming a part of the comprehensive package - only a part of the package cannot be picked up for invoking exemption - for the purposes of levy of service tax, the service rendered cannot be dissected like this. [Para 54] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

High Court Rules (Patna) - Rule 8 of Chapter XII - Appeal against conviction shall be heard for admission unless the accused has surrendered to the order of the Court below convicting him to a sentence of imprisonment except in a case where the appellant has been released on bail by the trial court after convicting him - This Rule applies to the pre-admission stage, not applicable after admission. (Para 7) Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

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

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

Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956; Section 12 - Adoption - While the main object of adoption in the past has been to secure the performance of one's funeral rights and to preserve the continuance of one's lineage, in recent times, the modern adoption theory aims to restore family life to a child deprived of his or her biological family - When child takes on to be a kosher member of the adoptive family it is only logical that he takes the surname of the adoptive family - A name is important as a child derives his identity from it and a difference in name from his family would act as a constant reminder of the factum of adoption and expose the child to unnecessary questions hindering a smooth, natural relationship between him and his parent. (Para 11-14) Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Section 9(3) - Natural Guardian - Mother has an equal position as the father. (Para 9) Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

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

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10B(8) - For claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. (Para 14) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583

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

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Appeal against the judgment of High Court of Gujarat whereby the warrant of authorization issued by Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was quashed - Allowed - The question as to whether such reasons are adequate or not is not a matter for the Court to review in a writ petition. The sufficiency of the grounds which induced the competent authority to act is not a justiciable issue. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure. The belief recorded alone is justiciable but only while keeping in view the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness. Such reasonableness is not a power to act as an appellate authority over the reasons to believe recorded. (Para 32) Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

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

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka); Section 29(4) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 18(1) - Person Interested - A subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a "person interested" for the purpose of determination of compensation - The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966 are both distinct and the provisions under both the Acts are distinguishable. (Para 7.3-7.4) Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Intended to consolidate and amend the laws with a view to reorganize Corporate Debtors and resolve insolvency in a time bound manner for maximization of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor - The statute deals with and/or tackles insolvency and bankruptcy. It is certainly not the object of the IBC to penalize solvent companies, temporarily defaulting in repayment of its financial debts, by initiation of CIRP. (Para 80 - 81) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - NCLT admitted an application for initiating CIRP filed by operational creditor - NCLAT set it aside - Supreme Court dismissed and held: NCLT committed a grave error of law by admitting the application of the Operational Creditor, even though there was a pre-existing dispute as noted by it. SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Legislature has consciously differentiated between Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, as there is an innate difference between Financial Creditors, in the business of investment and financing, and Operational Creditors in the business of supply of goods and services. Financial credit is usually secured and of much longer duration. Such credits, which are often long term credits, on which the operation of the Corporate Debtor depends, cannot be equated to operational debts which are usually unsecured, of a shorter duration and of lesser amount. The financial strength and nature of business of a Financial Creditor cannot be compared with that of an Operational Creditor, engaged in supply of goods and services. The impact of the non-payment of admitted dues could be far more serious on an Operational Creditor than on a financial creditor. (Para 78) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7(5)(a) - Ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit an application under Section 7 of the IBC of the IBC and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition - It has to consider the grounds made out by the Corporate Debtor against admission, on its own merits. (Para 87 - 88) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7(5)(a) - The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has been conferred the discretion to admit the application of the Financial Creditor. If facts and circumstances so warrant, the Adjudicating Authority can keep the admission in abeyance or even reject the application. Of course, in case of rejection of an application, the Financial Creditor is not denuded of the right to apply afresh for initiation of CIRP, if its dues continue to remain unpaid - The Adjudicating Authority might examine the expedience of initiation of CIRP, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including the overall financial health and viability of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority may in its discretion not admit the application of a Financial Creditor. (Para 77 - 79) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7-9 - Noticeable differences in the IBC between the procedure of initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor and by an operational creditor -The NCLT is not a debt collection forum. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 8-9 - If the claim is undisputed and the operational debt remains unpaid, CIRP must commence- IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an Operational Creditor. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 8-9 - if the debt is disputed, the application of the Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP must be dismissed - CIRP should be initiated to penalize solvent companies for non-payment of disputed dues claimed by an operational creditor. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Section 9(5)(a) mandatory - An application of an Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9(2) of the IBC is mandatorily required to be admitted if the application is complete in all respects and in compliance of the 28 requisites of the IBC and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, if notices for payment or the invoice has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor and no notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor. The IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an operational creditor. (Para 76) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

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

Interpretation of Statutes - All interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act - This is applicable while interpreting any provision in any statute especially when the power under that provision is conferred to pass orders that may be just or proper. (Para 18) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Interpretation of Statutes - Environment and Forest Laws - The approach of the court in interpreting the laws relating to forests and the environment discussed (Para 25) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Interpretation of Statutes - First and foremost principle of interpretation of a statute is the rule of literal interpretation - Purposive interpretation can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or if construed literally, the provision would nullify the object of the statute or otherwise lead to an absurd result. (Para 65 - 69) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

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

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

Interpretation of Statutes - Municipal laws giving effect to International Conventions - Courts of law must endeavor to maintain a uniformity of interpretation with courts of other jurisdictions while interpreting international treaties and conventions. (Para 29) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Laws - In a taxing statute the provisions are to be read as they are and they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee - An assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. (Para 8, 11) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583

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

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

Interpretation of Statutes - While dealing with a welfare legislation, a purposive interpretation giving the benefit to the needy person being the intendment is the role required to be played by the court. (Para 57) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

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

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

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

Judgments - Supreme Court advises High Courts to pronounce judgments without delay after concluding arguments -t is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved-Long delay in delivery of the judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parties in a case. (Para 6.2) State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Judicial Infrastructure - Supreme Court directs the Law Secretaries of all State Governments to file affidavits relating to budget allocation and utilization. Imtiaz Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 636

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

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

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

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

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

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Guidelines with respect to preliminary evaluation - appropriate and specific guidelines in this regard are required to be put in place - it open for the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015. [Para 87] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Proviso to Section 15 read as mandatory condition - for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts - where the Board is not comprising of a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the expression "may" in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and the Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts - however, in case the Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor. [Para 76] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Preliminary assessment on four aspects - mental capacity to commit the offence; physical capacity to commit the offence; ability to understand the consequences of the offence; and circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed. [Para 62] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - preliminary assessment requires holistic evaluation. [Para 65, 66] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Ability to understand the consequences of the offence - The language used in section 15 is "the ability to understand the consequences of the offence" - the expression used is in plurality i.e., "consequences" of the offence and, therefore, would not just be confined to the immediate consequence of the offence but impact/consequences for other people connected with the victim and the child and other far-reaching consequences in the future - This evaluation of 'mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences' of the child in conflict with law can, in no way, be relegated to the status of a perfunctory and a routine task. [Para 68, 69, 70, 71, 75] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Mental Capacity to commit offence and ability to understand the consequences of offence are different -The Board and the Children's Court apparently were of the view that the mental capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence were one and the same, that is to say that if the child had the mental capacity to commit the offence, then he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequences of the offence. This, in our considered opinion, is a grave error committed by them. [Para 67] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

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

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which are basically for the purpose of collection of stamp duty, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act - The market value of the land depends upon the location of the land; area of the land; whether the land is in a developed area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land and number of other advantageous and disadvantageous factors are required to be considered - There cannot be a uniform market value of the land for the purpose of determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 9-12) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603

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

Legal Maxims - Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not the principle applicable in India. (Para 6) Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 only bars the remedy, but when the right itself is extinguished, provisions of the Limitation Act have no application. (Para 15.2) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

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

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

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

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 29(2) - Express empowerment is to be gathered from the provisions of the statute - Even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. (Para 48) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Marital Rape - Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC - Exception 2 states that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife is not rape, unless she is below 15 years of age – Supreme Court leaves the constitutional validity of marital rape to be decided in appropriate proceedings but states that for the purpose of MTP Act, meaning of rape includes marital rape. (Para 74, 75, 115) X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Marital Rape - Rape includes 'marital rape' for the purpose of MTP Rules - Rule 3B(a) -Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest shall be considered eligible for termination of pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks – Supreme Court holds that meaning of rape must be understood as including marital rape, solely for the purposes of the MTP Act – Woman need not seek recourse to formal legal proceedings to prove sexual assault, rape or incest. (Para 70, 75, 76) X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

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

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

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

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - All women are entitled to safe and legal abortions (Para 56) - There is no rationale in excluding unmarried women from the ambit of Rule 3B of MTP Rules which mentions the categories of women who can seek abortion of pregnancy in the term 20-24 weeks. (Para 121) X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Effect of 2021 amendment - Parliamentary intent to cover unmarried woman too-After 2021 amendment, the word "married woman" has been substituted with "any woman" and "husband" with "partner"-The Parliamentary intent, therefore, is clearly not to confine the beneficial provisions of the MTP Act only to a situation involving a matrimonial relationship. [Para 16 & 18] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Gap in the law exists between MTP Act and MTP Rules -Evidently, there is a gap in the law : while Section 3 travels beyond conventional relationships based on marriage, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules does not envisage a situation involving unmarried women, but recognizes other categories of women such as divorcees, widows, minors, disabled and mentally ill women and survivors of sexual assault or rape. [Para 18] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Supreme Court passes ad-interim order allowing unmarried woman to terminate pregnancy of 24-week term arising out of a consensual relationship - Prima facie observes the case is covered under Section 3(2)(b). X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - There is no basis to deny unmarried women the right to medically terminate the pregnancy, when the same choice is available to other categories of women -Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom-The distinction between a married and unmarried woman does not bear a nexus to the basic purpose and object which is sought to be achieved by Parliament which is conveyed specifically by the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 3 of the Act. [Para 18, 20, 21] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971; Section 3(2)(b) - Termination of a pregnancy till twenty-four weeks of women if it causes risk of injury to the mental health – unwanted pregnancy can be construed as injury to mental health. (Para 62, 63, 64) X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 - Rule 3B (categories of women who can seek abortion of pregnancy of 20-24 weeks) - A narrow interpretation of Rule 3B, limited only to married women, would render the provision discriminatory towards unmarried women and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Prohibiting unmarried or single pregnant women (whose pregnancies are between twenty and twenty-four weeks) from accessing abortion while allowing married women to access them during the same period would fall foul of the spirit guiding Article 140 - Purposive interpretation given to Rule 3B to include unmarried women whose pregnancy arise out of consensual relationship. (Para 121) X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003; Rule 3B(b) - Rule 3B(b) includes minors within the category of women who may terminate their pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks – the RMP need not disclose the identity and other personal details of the minor in the information provided under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. (Para 81) X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003; Rule 3B(c) - Women going through a change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy shall be considered eligible for termination of pregnancy – distinction between married and single women is not constitutionally sustainable – benefits in law extend equally to both single and married women. (Para 90, 92) X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

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

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

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

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

Motor Accident Claims - The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the drive. (Para 10) Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646

Motor Accidents Compensation - Supreme Court grants relief to an advocate who had suffered 100% permanent disability due to an accident by enhancing the compensation awarded by the High Court from Rs 23,20,000/- to Rs 51,62,000/-. Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Motor Accidents Claims Compensation - Mutliplier Method - Multiplier method has been recognized as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided by looking at the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other realistic needs - Not only for determination of future loss of earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method should be followed. (Para 14) Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569

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

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

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

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

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

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976; Section 4(7), 4(8), 15 - Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985; Section 8A - Constitutional validity upheld -There is nothing wrong in State Legislature making it compulsory to pay outstanding welfare fund contribution first before accepting the vehicle tax which had become due and payable - These provisions are in no way in conflict with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The real intent and purpose behind these provisions is to restate the mandate stated in the 1988 Act that the vehicle cannot be used on road without a valid permit and payment of vehicle tax up to date. (Para 40) All Kerala Distributors Association v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 639

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

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

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

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - The expression "reasonable grounds" used in Section 37(1)(b) under NDPS Act would mean credible, plausible grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. (Para 14) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Bail considerations - The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 17-18) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Bail - The admissions made by the accused while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside - Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 16) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - At the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail. (Para 15) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - NCB's appeal against Delhi HC order granting bail to accused - Allowed - Even dehors the confessional statements, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the accused - The observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage - Set aside Bail order. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

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

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

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 27A, 37 - When applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable in this case and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply. (Para 16.4) State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 27A, 37 - Appeal against Calcutta High Court order granted bail to a person accused under Sections 21(b)/29/27A of NDPS Act - Dismissed - No reason to consider interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions. State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 4 - NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011; Rule 3 - In view of the proviso to Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 which states that the number of expert members hearing the appeal or application shall be equal to the number of judicial members, mandating that there shall be at least one expert member on the Bench. Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614

NEET Admissions - Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the respondent to conduct admissions through institutional preference. The decision of whether or not to provide institutional preference solely lies with the respondent-authority since it falls within the realm of policy. (Para 9) Hemant Kumar Verma v. Employee State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 641

NEET In-Service Quota - Junior Resident Doctors serving in Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) run hospitals as part of their bond period cannot claim 50% in-service quota for Post Graduate courses at par with Insurance Medical Officers-There is a clear distinction in law between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors. The in-service quota is, therefore, justifiably made available to the latter category. The petitioners cannot claim parity with regularly recruited insurance medical officers in seeking the benefit of the in-service quota. (Para 10) Hemant Kumar Verma v. Employee State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 641

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orders - Conditional Order - CAT while setting aside disciplinary proceedings directed the disciplinary authority to complete the fresh proceedings within two months - The fresh proceedings was not completed within this stipulated time and an order was passed by the authority later - CAT rejected employee's challenge against this order - Allowing writ petition filed by employee, the High Court held that Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction or authority to complete the proceedings beyond the period prescribed by the Tribunal - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: While treating the proceedings as having abated and as nullity, the High Court has ignored the fundamental principles that fixing of such time period was only a matter of procedure with an expectation of conclusion of the proceedings in an expeditious manner. This period of two months had not acquired any such mandatory statutory character so as to nullify the entire of the disciplinary proceedings with its expiry. Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Orders - Conditional Order - When a conditional order is passed by the Court/Tribunal to do a particular act or thing within a particular period but the order does not provide anything as to the consequence of default, the Court/Tribunal fixing the time for doing a particular thing obviously retains the power to enlarge such time. As a corollary, even the Appellate Court/Tribunal or any higher forum would also be having the power to enlarge such time, if so required. In any case, it cannot be said that the proceedings would come to an end immediately after the expiry of the time fixed. (Para 9.2) Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595

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

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - As the explanation to Section 121A of the IPC discloses, for an offence of conspiracy, it would not be necessary that any act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance thereof. Thus, even though no untoward incident had actually of the IPC, the matter would still come within the four corners of Section 121A of the IPC. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - Conspiracy to wage war against India - The dictionary meaning of the expression "overawe" is to subdue or inhibit with a sense of awe. The expression "overawe" would thus imply creation of apprehension or situation of alarm and as rightly held by the Division Bench (in the case of Mir Hasan Khan v. State (or Ramanand v. State), it would not be necessary that the danger should be one of assassination of or of bodily injury to the members of the machinery or apparatus of the Government but the danger might as well be to public property or to the safety of members of the general public. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of four persons for causing the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru in December, 2005. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 221 - "charge" not defined under Cr.P.C. - a false "charge" in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning - would include a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion - the expression "falsely charges" in this section, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial - "to falsely charge" must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion - the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial - the false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings - in other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made - the statement in order to constitute the "charges" should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. [Para 91, 94] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code 1860; Section 221 - Essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence; the complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person, this complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. [Para 90] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

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

Penal Code 1860; Section 376(2)(n) - Offence of committing repeated rape on same woman - The complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship - Now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC - Observations while granting anticipatory bail to accused. Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 304 Part II - Conviction of appellants modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II - Considerations relevant for determining a culpable homicide amounting to murder and distinguishing it from the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 17) Ajmal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609

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

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

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

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Abetment to commit suicide - Even an indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. (Para 16) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

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

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

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

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

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

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961; Regulation 173 - Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 12 - Unless the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the entitlement to disability pension does not arise - There has to be a reasonable causal connection between the injuries resulting in disability and the military service. (Para 8-10) Union of India v. Ex Naik Ram Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 611

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

Pleadings - Decree or direction beyond what was sought cannot be granted - Limits of a court to grant reliefs beyond the prayer and pleadings of the parties discussed. (Para 36) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

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

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

Practice & Procedure - Party having the right of consideration of appeal does not have any corresponding right to insist for consideration of the appeal by a forum which is no longer in existence. Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi v. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 625

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

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

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

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

Practice and Procedure - Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. (Para 14-17) Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 630

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

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

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

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

Precedents - A judgment is a precedent for the question of law that is raised and decided. The language used in a judgment cannot be read like a statute. In any case, words and phrases in the judgment cannot be construed in a truncated manner out of context. (Para 84) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

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

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

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

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

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

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ECIR vis-a-vis FIR - there is no need to formally register ECIR - ECIR is internal document - there is not requirement in law to furnish copy of ECIR to accused - non-recording of ECIR does not prevent the authorities from proceeding with inquiry/investigation for attachment - it is sufficient if at the time of arrest the person is informed the grounds on which the arrest is being made; sufficient compliance of A 22(1) of the Constitution; the Court before whom the accused is produced can call ED officers for relevant records. [Para 176-179] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ED Manual - is internal document and in the nature of administrative orders - common public may not be entitled to access such confidential administrative instructions for internal guidance of ED - there is no investigation but inquiry akin to civil action of attachment - since the inquiry ends in identifying the offender and then they are prosecuted, Authorities can considered outlining some crucial procedures and explore the feasibility of placing document on official website of ED. [Para 180-181] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Schedule of 2002 Act - classification or grouping of offences for treating the same as relevant for constituting offence of money- laundering is a matter of legislative policy. [Para 175-175A] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of powers of Enforcement Directorate for arrest, search and seizure, attachment - Court upholds the constitutionality of reverse burden of proof (Section 24) and twin conditions of bail (Section 45). Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 17 - Searches and Seizures - 2002 Act is a self contained code - inbuilt safeguards present - only Director and officers not below the rank of Deputy Director can authorise officers to carry out search and seizure - provision to record reasons shows it requires application of mind - officer conducting search is to forward a copy of the reasons recorded and materials in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope - officer seizing property obligated to submit application before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days for retention of record - officers carrying out search and seizure made accountable; can be punished under Section 62 - process of searches and seizure is not only for inquiry into the process of money-laundering, but also prevention - for strengthening mechanism Parliament has rightfully dropped the condition that no search shall be conducted unless there is a police report or a private complaint in relation to the scheduled offence. [Para 77-86] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 18 - Search of persons - officers to adhere to identical inbuilt safeguards as in exercise of power under Section 17 - search of person is a fair and reasonable procedure (search and seizure) - search to be carried out in presence of two witnesses - officers to prepare a list of record of seized property - search of a female person can be done only by a female - upon seizing property concerned office to submit application before Adjudicating Authority - opportunity to be given to concerned person to defend their property. [Para 87] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - Arrest - inbuilt stringent safeguards - power to arrest on high-ranking officers - provision to record reason regarding involvement in money-laundering - grounds of arrest to be informed to the person at the time of making arrest - copy of order along with material to be sent to Adjudicating Authority - arrested person is required to be procedure in Special Court within 24 hours of arrest. [Para 88-90] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 24 - Burden of Proof - application not limited to proceedings before Special Court - to apply to proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority regarding confirmation of provisional attachment order and order of confiscation vesting the attached property in the Central Government - would also apply to proceedings before Special Court upon presentation of complaint by officer under Section 44(1)(b) - before the Adjudicating Authority it is not necessary to follow proof beyond reasonable doubt, but would apply before the Special Court - on establishing that there exists proceeds of crime and the person in involved/linked in any process or activity connected with such proceeds, a legal presumption would arise that the proceeds of crime are involved in money -laundering - the onus merely shifts on the person facing charges to rebut the legal presumption - the presumption under Section 24(b) is not a mandatory legal presumption; but presumption under Section 24(a) is. [Para 91-103] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - offence of "money laundering" - widely worded; meant not only to investigate offence but also regulate it - involved in any process or activity with the proceeds of crime - including concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting/claiming tainted money to be untainted - all these processes or activities independently constitute offence of money laundering - projection/claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted is not the only process or activity which constitutes offence of money laundering - "and" proceeding "projection or claiming" is to be read as "or" - Explanation added by Finance Bill, 2019 - 2019 amendment to Section 3 is only clarificatory in nature - whether brought in by way of a Finance Bill or not would not affect the original main provision - relevant date under the Statute is not linked to the date on which the scheduled offence was committed, but the one on which the person indulged in the "process or activity" connect with proceeds of crime - authorised officers can prosecute for money laundering only when there exists proceeds of crime - authorised officers cannot proceed to attach and confiscate property on the basis of assumption but on the basis of credible evidence indicating involvement in "process or activity" with proceeds of crime. [Para 37-55] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 44(1)(a) - Special Courts -an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed - Section 44(1)(a) is directory in nature - it is read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-to-case basis. [Para 104-114] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - Bail - Post Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (held Section 45 pre- 2018 Amendment as unconstitutional) the provision was not obliterated from the statute book; it merely held that the provision as it stood then was violative of A. 14 and 21 - it was open for the Parliament to cure the defect - once cured, the provision got revived - observations in Nikesh distinguishing the challenge to twin bail condition under PMLA from Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab dealing with TADA Act (calling PMLA less heinous than terrorism) overruled - twin condition though strict does not impose absolute restraint on garnet of bail - similar twin conditions is provided in several other special legislations - the twin bail conditions is also applicable for anticipatory bail - Section 436A CrPC providing maximum period for which under-trial prisoner can be detained, could be invoked by person accused under 2002 Act. [Para 115-149] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 5 - Attachment, adjudication and confiscation - inbuilt safeguards provided - only Director and officers not below rank of Deputy Director can issue provisional attachment order - only upon satisfaction that the person possesses proceeds of crime; is charged with commission of scheduled offence; there is likelihood of concealment, can the officer proceed to issue provisional attachment order - provisional order operates for 180 days - On issuing order of provisional attachment copy of the order to be forward to Adjudicating Authority - officer passing such order to forward copy of order to Adjudicating Authority - officer to file complaint within 30 days of the order - 2015 amendment has rightfully removed the requirement of registering scheduled offence and also show substantial progress in investigation to pass provisional attachment order - if scheduled offence is not registered with local police it is open to ED officers to proceed with provisional attachment while contemporaneously sending information to the police. [Para 56-70] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 50 - Summoning Power - the officers under the act conducts inquiry to ascertain existence of proceeds of crime and involvement of persons in money-laundering - PMLA is not a penal statute - Section 45(1A) clarifies that regular police officer cannot take cognisance of offence of money laundering - provisions of CrPC and Evidence Act does not apply to the inquiry carried out by the ED officers - it is a sui generis legislation, not only dealing with the prevention, detection, attachment, confiscation, vesting and making it obligatory for the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to comply with certain essential formalities and make them accountable for failure thereof, and also permits prosecution of the persons found involved in the money- laundering activity - ED officers are not police officers - statement recorded by them cannot be hit by Articles 20(3) and 21. [Para 150-173] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 63 - Punishment for willfully providing false information causing arrest or search - not an unreasonable provision. [Para 174] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 8 - In the period between the confirmation of provisional attachment under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the passing of the formal order of confiscation, the person interested in the immovable property can enjoy it - direction under Section 8(4) to take possession of the property before a formal order of confiscation is passed, merely on the basis of confirmation of provisional attachment order, should be an exception and not a rule - FAFT permits non-conviction based confiscation model. [Para 71-76] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Property Law - Co-ownership - The co­owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a sole owner of the property. No co­owner has a definite right, title and interest in any particular item or a portion thereof. On the other hand, he has right, title and interest in every part and parcel of the joint property. He owns several parts of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner in the property. It is observed that, therefore, one co­owner can file a suit and recover the property against strangers and the decree would enure to all the co­owners. (Para 9.4) Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Prospective Overruling - The law declared by a court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically - Power to apply the doctrine of prospective overruling (so as to remove the adverse effect) must be exercised in the clearest possible term. Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Appeal against HC order that granted bail to POCSO Accused who allegedly raped and murdered his 11 year old daughter - Allowed - Ex facie, the allegations are grave, the punishment is severe and it cannot be said that there are no materials on record at all - Order set aside. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 19(1) - When a minor approaches a Registered Medical Practitioner for a medical termination of pregnancy arising out of a consensual sexual activity, an RMP is obliged to provide information to concerned authorities – Supreme Court states that the RMP need not disclose the identity and other personal details of the minor in the information. (Para 79, 80, 81) X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Public Employment - Examinations - The advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up of the application form and also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed - Candidate used different language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected. (Para 14-18) Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 630

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

Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 14 - Powers of Registrar - When a Trust property is transferred without prior sanction of the Registrar under Section 14 and/or without following a fair and transparent process, it can be always said that the Trust property is not being properly managed or administered - The Registrar can refuse sanction only when he is satisfied that the transactions will be prejudicial to the interests of the Public Trust. (Para 43 - 47) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 36 - Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 36 operate in different fields. When sub-Section (1) is applicable to a Public Trust, none of the provisions of the Public Trusts Act is applicable to the Trust. Sub-Section (2) is an independent power of the State Government to issue a notification exempting certain Public Trusts from all or any of the provisions of the Public Trusts Act. (Para 39) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

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

Religious Endowment - Dedication of a property as religious endowment does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances - Extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time, which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes. (Para 20-25) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

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

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

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

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

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

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 4(1) - Meaning of 'Initiation' for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act - Issuance and publication of Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette of the appropriate Government - When Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act - Only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied. (Para 27, 34) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - The District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act - Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can exercise powers under Section 14. (Para 9-12) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - Step to be taken by the CMM/DM under Section 14 is a ministerial step. While disposing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi ­judicial function or application of mind would require -The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the correctness of the information given in the application and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of secured assets. (Para 8) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 (1A) - it is open to the CMM/DM to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor under Section 14(1A) of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 6.2) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

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

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

Service Law - Appointment as Management Trainee (Technical), cannot be compared to the education and appointment of a medical doctor. (Para 12) Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Service Law - Caste Certificate - When a person secures appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment. (Para 14) Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Service Law - Direct Recruitment - The preparation of inter se merit list of the selected candidates is inevitable, even in the absence of an explicit provision in the rule or policy, the recruitment authority cannot place the candidates inter se in the select list under the rule of thumb or by adopting the methodology which is inconsistent with the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The inter se merit list of the selected candidates can be prepared as a combined effect of several factors like written test, objective test, viva­voce and/or other parameters as may have been prescribed keeping in view the special requirement of service. (Para 16) Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Service Law - Judicial Service - Munisffs - The roster points do not determine the seniority of the appointees who gain simultaneous appointments; that is to say, those who are appointed collectively on the same date or are deemed to be appointed on the same date, irrespective when they joined their posts - The roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process. It has nothing to do with the inter­ se seniority among those recruited. (Para 29) Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560

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

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

Service Law - Parity of Pay Scale - Well settled that there can be no equality to a wrong and/or illegality. Just because a librarian may have been erroneously granted the UGC pay scale, that would not entitle others to claim the UGC pay scale, if not applicable under the Rules. (Para 20) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Service Law - Promotion based on merit­ cum­ seniority - Seniority by itself is not the only qualification for promotion to a selection post - The comparative merit has to be evaluated in which seniority will be one of the factors only - Even a junior most person may steal a march over his seniors and jump the queue for accelerated promotion. (Para 16) Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Service Law - The doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way. Mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court had to consider all the relevant factors such as the mode of recruitment, qualifications for the post, the nature of work, the value of work, responsibilities involved and various other factors. (Para 18) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Service Law - The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the duties are identical in every aspect. (Para 23) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (Karnataka); Section 20 - Constitutional Validity - Karnataka High Court struck down the provision as unconstitutional, in appeal, the Supreme Court held: High Court has dealt with the question of validity of Section 20 in a casual manner. That cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the Constitutional Court for answering the assail on this count, in the first place, need to examine the scheme of the 1973 Act, its objects and purposes as also the question: whether the payment of amount specified as three hundred times the property tax payable in respect of such land on the date of publication would be a permissible method of determination of the amount or is per se unjust, unfair or unreasonable - Impugned judgment set aside and remanded. State of Karnataka v. B.R. Muralidhar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka); Section 18 - High Court is empowered to interfere with findings of fact only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence or suffering from error of law or there has been non-appreciation or non-consideration of a material on record by the court(s) below - That another view is possible based on the evidence on record can be no ground for the High Court to interfere with an order of court(s) below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - When the judgment and decree of the Civil Court is not 'according to law,' the High Court is certainly within its rights to set aside the decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (Para 6, 11) K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561

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

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

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

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The Court is obliged to take judicial notice of the phenomenal rise in the price of real estate - Having paid an insignificant amount the Plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary equitable relief of Specific Performance. (Para 38-39) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The fact that the suit had been filed after three years, just before expiry of the period of limitation, is also a ground to decline the Plaintiff the equitable relief of Specific Performance for purchase of immovable property - The courts will also frown upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for one or two years to file a suit and obtain Specific Performance. The three year period is intended to assist the purchaser in special cases, as for example where the major part of the consideration has been paid to the vendor and possession has been delivered in part performance, where equity shifts in favour of the purchaser. (Para 43) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

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

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

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

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - Distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract - Both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance - While readiness means the capacity of the Plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the Plaintiff. (Para 34) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - In a suit for Specific Performance of a contract, the Court is required to pose unto itself the following questions, namely:- (i) Whether there is a valid agreement of sale binding on both the vendor and the vendee and (ii) Whether the Plaintiff has all along been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.Even in a first appeal, the first Appellate Court is duty bound to examine whether there was continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff to perform the contract. (Para 33-35) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff a condition precedent for grant of the relief of Specific Performance-It is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances including availability of funds and mere statement or averment in plaint of readiness and willingness, would not suffice -Deposit of amount in court is not enough to arrive at conclusion that Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. (Para 24 - 46) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

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

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

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

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

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

Subordinate Judiciary - Supreme Court directs pay hike for subordinate judiciary as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission w.e.f January 1, 2016. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 635

Surname - A surname refers to the name a person shares with other members of that person's family, distinguished from that person's given name or names; a family name. Surname is not only indicative of lineage and should not be understood just in context of history, culture and lineage but more importantly the role it plays is with regard to the social reality along with a sense of being for children in their particular environment. Homogeneity of surname emerges as a mode to create, sustain and display 'family. Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Surname - Andhra Pradesh HC direction to a mother who remarried another person after death of her first husband to restore surname of a child - Further direction that wherever the records permit, the name of the natural father shall be shown and if it is otherwise impermissible, the name of the present husband shall be mentioned as step-father - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: Nothing unusual in mother, upon remarriage having given the child the surname of her husband or even giving the child in adoption to her husband - The direction to include the name of the present husband as step-father in documents is almost cruel and mindless of how it would impact the mental health and self-esteem of the child - The mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoption. Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Tenancy & Rent Control Law - Mesne Profits - After passing the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from the use of the premises - Once a decree for possession has been passed and the execution is delayed depriving the decree holder to reap the fruits, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders fixing reasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent required to be paid by a person who is holding over the property -Appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put reasonable terms and conditions as would in its opinion reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree while granting the stay. M/s. Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd v. Rajendra Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 568

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

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - In a suit for ejectment filed by the landlord the material questions would be whether there was jural relationship of landlord – tenant between the parties and whether tenancy was validly terminated. (Para 8) K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 106, 111(a) - On determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary. K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 111 - Mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561

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

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

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

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

Trust - A Trust property cannot be alienated unless it is for the benefit of the Trust and/or its beneficiaries. The Trustees are not expected to deal with the Trust property, as if it is their private property. It is the legal obligation of the Trustees to administer the Trust and to give effect to the objects of the Trust. (Para 45) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Trust - SC set aside the direction issued by MP HC for an investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against the trustees of the Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust of Indore over alleged misappropriation of government properties - Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act 1951 will apply to the Khasgi trust and directed the trustees to get the Khasgi Trust registered under the Public Trusts Act by making the necessary application within a period of one month - Registrar under the Public Trusts Act, having jurisdiction over Khasgi Trust, to call for the record of the Trust relating to all the alienations made by the Trustees. Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Section 33 - The authority cannot impose damages and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages. (Para 5) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Section 33 - Wide powers - Chief Wild Life Warden/appropriate authority may even pass an order of closure of the institution, if the institution continues to discharge the effluent in the sanctuary which may affect and/or damage the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary, after following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. (Para 5) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Words and Phrases - Bail - A bail is nothing but a surety inclusive of a personal bond from the accused. It means the release of an accused person either by the orders of the Court or by the police or by the Investigating Agency. It is a set of pre-trial restrictions imposed on a suspect while enabling any interference in the judicial process. Thus, it is a conditional release on the solemn undertaking by the suspect that he would cooperate both with the investigation and the trial - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. (Para 8-12) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Words and Phrases - Dictionary - A dictionary always contains the meaning of the words as they are understood by people for generations. It contains the meaning of a word which is already legitimized. Lexicographers include a word in the dictionary when it is used by many in the same way. (Para 39) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Words and Phrases - May and Shall - Ordinarily the word "may" is directory. The expression 'may admit' confers discretion to admit. In contrast, the use of the word "shall" postulates a mandatory requirement. The use of the word "shall" raises a presumption that a provision is imperative. However, the prima facie presumption about the provision being imperative may be rebutted by other considerations such as the scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from the construction. (Para 64) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Words and Phrases - Trial - An extended meaning has to be given to this word for the purpose of enlargement on bail to include, the stage of investigation and thereafter - Primary considerations would obviously be different between these two stages. In the former stage, an arrest followed by a police custody may be warranted for a thorough investigation, while in the latter what matters substantially is the proceedings before the Court in the form of a trial. If we keep the above distinction in mind, the consequence to be drawn is for a more favourable consideration towards enlargement when investigation is completed, of course, among other factors - An appeal or revision shall also be construed as a facet of trial when it comes to the consideration of bail on suspension of sentence. (Para 7) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

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

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569
2. Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608
3. Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi v. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 625
4. Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578
5. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika v. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 739
6. Airports Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 814
7. Ajhola Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695
8. Ajmal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609]
9. Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638
10. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 661
11. All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632
12. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 635
13. All Kerala Distributors Association v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 639
14. Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600
15. Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582
16. Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805
17. Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599
18. Anupam Ghosh v. Faiz Mohammed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 751
19. Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 674
20. Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 696]
21. Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607
22. Ashok G. Rajani v. Beacon Trusteeship Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 790
23. Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 717
24. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585
25. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648
26. Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Developers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747
27. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Ajanta Press and Mechanical Works, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 769
28. Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 799
29. Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 800
30. Bank of Baroda v. Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 671
31. Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593
32. Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645
33. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603
34. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Tata Communications Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 792
35. Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589
36. BLA Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 683
37. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 770
38. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 725
39. Budhiyarin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 667
40. Central Bank of India v. Nitin, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690
41. Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694
42. Chherturam @ Chainu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 761
43. Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572
44. Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804
45. Civil Hospital v. Manjit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 781
46. Col. Vineet Raman Sharda v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 606
47. Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660
48. D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 791
49. Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650
50. Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642
51. Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562
52. Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 718
53. Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581
54. Devarakonda Surya Sesha Mani v. Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 753
55. Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597
56. Dilip v. Satish, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570
57. Director of Teacher's Training Research Education v. OM Jessymol, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 759
58. Dr. J. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 655
59. Essar House Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 765
60. Ethel Lourdes D'Souza Lobo v. Lucio Neville Jude De Souza, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 795
61. G.N.R. Babu @ S.N. Babu v. Dr. B.C. Muthappa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 748
62. Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682
63. Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 771
64. Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631
65. Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602
66. Gyanendra Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 808
67. H.S. Deekshit v. Metropoli Overseas Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 703
68. Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 783
69. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 782
70. Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 720
71. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644
72. HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811
73. Hemant Kumar Verma v. Employee State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 641
74. Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598
75. Honnaiah T.H. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 672
76. Imtiaz Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 636
77. In Re Perry Kansagra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576
78. In Re: Framing Guidelines regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to be considered while imposing Death Sentences, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 777
79. Independent Schools Federation of India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 719
80. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616
81. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 744
82. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610
83. J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 669
84. Jagan Singh & Co. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 733
85. Jagdish Prasad Saini v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 801
86. Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658
87. Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666
88. Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kuttch District Panchayat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 797
89. Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 794
90. JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 693
91. K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 803
92. K. Paramasivam v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 742
93. K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561
94. Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 763
95. Kanchan Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 640
96. Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 567
97. Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
98. Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623
99. Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689
100. Kolli Satyanarayana v. Valuripalli Kesava Rao Chowdary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 807
101. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673
102. Life Insurance Corporation v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729
103. M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 737
104. M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701
105. M/s. Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd v. Rajendra Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 568
106. Mahadeo v. Sovan Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 730
107. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657
108. Maitreya Doshi v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 789
109. Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677
110. Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563
111. Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649
112. Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560
113. Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692
114. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604
115. Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574
116. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590
117. Mohammed Latif Magrey v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 756
118. Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629
119. Mohana Krishnan S. v. K. Balasubramaniyam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 726
120. Mohd Shakir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 727
121. Mona Baghel v. Sajjan Singh Yadav, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734
122. Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802
123. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 728
124. Munikrishna @ Krishna v. State by UIsoor PS, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 812
125. My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698
126. Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579
127. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613
128. Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620
129. National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 665
130. National Highway Authority of India v. Transstroy (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586
131. National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584
132. National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705
133. Navika Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 796
134. NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
135. Neilan International Co. Ltd. v. Powerica Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 566
136. Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684
137. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashikala J. Ayachi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591
138. Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652
139. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723
140. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714
141. Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy v. Banque Cantonale De Geneve, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 793
142. P. Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 749
143. Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688
144. Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716
145. Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678
146. Peacock Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 740
147. Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 768
148. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686
149. Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654
150. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583
151. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592
152. R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634
153. R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612
154. Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 687
155. Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702
156. Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605
157. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 750
158. Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 806
159. Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 670
160. Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709
161. Raman (D) v. R. Natarajan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 760
162. Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564
163. Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 754
164. Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615
165. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659
166. Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646
167. Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643
168. S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685
169. S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 766
170. S. Venkatesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 752
171. S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 772
172. Sahebrao Arjun Hon v. Raosaheb Kashinath Hon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 745
173. Sakharam v. Kishanrao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 722
174. Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 724
175. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577
176. Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798
177. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651
178. Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679
179. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 787
180. Securities and Exchange Board Of India v. Rajkumar Nagpal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 738
181. Selvakumar v. Manjula, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 786
182. Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596
183. Shanavi P onnusamy v. Ministry of Civil Aviation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 779
184. Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 746
185. Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (D), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 762
186. Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 774
187. Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565
188. Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 653
189. Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 788
190. SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617
191. St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708
192. State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710
193. State Bank of India v. Dr.Vijay Mallya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575
194. State of Haryana v. Anand Kindoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 780
195. State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622
196. State of Jharkhand v. Salauddin Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 755
197. State of Karnataka v. B.R. Muralidhar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637
198. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandu @ Nandua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 732
199. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571
200. State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 784
201. State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 776
202. State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 663
203. State of Rajasthan v. O.P. Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 785
204. State of Rajasthan v. Phool Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 735
205. State of Telangana v. B. Subba Rayadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767
206. State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 706
207. State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
208. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626
209. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prabhat Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736
210. State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580
211. State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 743
212. State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741
213. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697
214. Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601
215. Sudhamayee Pattnaik v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773
216. Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 810
217. Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715
218. Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 675
219. Sunil Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 775
220. Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647
221. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713
222. Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813
223. Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614
224. Tantia Constructions v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 624
225. Tarak Dash Mukharjee v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731
226. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656
227. Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 778
228. Tulshi Choudhary v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 668
229. Tulsi Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 764
230. U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588
231. Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691
232. Union of India v. Citibank NA, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704
233. Union of India v. Ex Naik Ram Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 611
234. Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619
235. Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 699
236. Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700
237. Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 630
238. Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595
239. Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573
240. University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680
241. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 711
242. Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 662]
243. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587
244. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633
245. Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 757
246. Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 758
247. Wyeth Limited v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 721
248. X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681
249. X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621
250. X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 809
251. X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 618
252. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 676
253. Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 664
254. Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707