CCTV

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

Cheque

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

Civil Law

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

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

Constitution

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

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

Criminal Law

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

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

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

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

Domestic Violence

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

DNA Test

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

Equal Pay for Equal Work

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

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

Environment

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

Interpretation of Statutes

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

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

Judicial Review

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

Judicial Service

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

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

Land Law

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

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

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

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

Lokayukta

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

Marriage

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

Money Laundering

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

Penal Law

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

Political Party

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

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

Power of Attorney

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

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

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

Re-Evaluation

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

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

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

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

Service Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Policy

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

Temporary Injunction

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

Z+ Security

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

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

STATUTE WISE INDEX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136
2. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 122
3. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 143
4. Bhawna v. Bhay Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148
5. C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130
6. Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 138
7. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 131
8. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124
9. Juhru v. Karim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 128
10. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 121
11. Neelam Pandey v. Rahul Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 141
12. Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 135
13. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 134
14. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 139
15. Rajkumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 144
16. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123
17. Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146
18. Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145
19. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127
20. Subrahmanyam Saderla v. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 126
21. Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137
22. Sushil Raghav v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 140
23. Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugham, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133
24. Union of India v. Bikash Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 147
25. Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129
26. Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 132
27. Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142
28. Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125