SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Bail

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

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

Citizenship

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

Civil Suit

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

Constitution

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

Court Deposit

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

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

Criminal Law

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

CRZ Notification

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

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

Delay

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

Environment

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

Equity

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

Estoppel and Acquiescence

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

Evidence Law

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

Hate Speech

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

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

Land Law

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

Negotiable Instruments

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

Service Law

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

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

Tax

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

Penal Law

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

Property

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

Remission

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

STATUTE WISE INDEX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69
2. Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 73
3. B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75
4. Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78
5. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79
6. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70
7. Hitesh v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 72
8. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 76
9. K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68
10. K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77
11. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 82
12. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81
13. Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71
14. Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74
15. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 80