SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Adultery

"It is not as if this court approved of adultery": Supreme Court clarifies 'Joseph Shine' judgment that declared Section 497 IPC unconstitutional. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Armed Forces Personnel liable to face disciplinary action for adultery despite striking down of Section 497 IPC. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Adultery - Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 - It is not as if this Court approved of adultery. This Court has found that adultery may be a moral wrong (per Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra). This Court has also held that it will continue to be a ground for securing dissolution of marriage. It has also been described as a civil wrong. (Para 23) Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Building

The Supreme Court upholds rule requiring builders to reserve open spaces in developed plots. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Building Rules - Supreme Court upheld a rule which mandated that builders should reserve open spaces in the plots developed by them- Regulation 19 of Development Control Rules for the Chennai Metropolitan Area. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Building Rules - Mandate to reserve 10% open space area does not violate Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution- It does not amount to compulsory acquisition. (Para 51, 66, 137,148, 154) Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Building Rules - Open Spaces - Areas covered by the Open Space Regulations cannot be diverted for any other purpose - The respondents (local authorities) are duty-bound to ensure that the area set apart as OSR is stringently utilised only for the purpose in the Rule/Regulation. We direct that no area meant for OSR shall be utilised as dumping yards or any other purpose other than as OSR. (Para 178) Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Central Excise

Supreme Court upholds Sec 9D Central Excise & Salt Act; Asks cigarette company to pay Rs 5 lakh cost for cancer affected children. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Civil Law

Remand order prolongs & delays litigation: Supreme Court explains scope of appellate court's power to remand. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Ouster of civil court's jurisdiction won't have retrospective effect to annul a decree validly passed by civil court. Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 109

It is settled law that ouster of jurisdiction of civil court can be expressed or implied, but it cannot have retrospective effect annulling a decree validly passed by the civil court. Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 109

Company Law

Company Secretary's Liability: Supreme Court says compliance officer should ensure compliance with SEBI's buyback regulations. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101

Supreme Court sets aside SAT order absolving Company Secretary of liability relating to violations of buyback regulations- says Compliance Officer has to ensure compliance- Asks SAT to reexamine liability. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101

Constitution

Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) is a 'State' u/Article 12. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115

High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, they are constitutional courts. Shankar Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Article 170 of Constitution not applicable to legislatures of union territories: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

While upholding J&K delimitation, the Supreme Court rejects comparisons with Telangana/AP & North Eastern states. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Parliament can convert existing state into a union territory: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Contempt

When the highest court of the country has passed an order, the collector cannot await permission to implement it. Junagadh Municipal Corporation v. Adarsh Cooperative Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Delimitation

Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation - There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K undertaken by the Delimitation Commission - there is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020 - There is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed - findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. We are aware that the issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending - Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving our imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 31 - 46) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

E-Filing

Ensure e-filing of all revenue appeals before HCs and Tribunals: Supreme Court directs centre. CCE and ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 106

Election

Municipal Corporation of Delhi mayor polls: Nominated members can't vote, holds Supreme Court; Election to be notified in 24 hours. Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119

Environment

The Supreme Court disapproves of building zoos inside tiger reserves; stops constructions within core areas of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Environment Protection - Supreme Court disapproves of constructing zoos and enclosures within national parks - Prima facie, we do not appreciate the necessity of having a zoo inside the tiger reserves or national parks. The concept of protecting these is to permit animals to reside in their natural environs and not artificial environs. We, therefore, also call upon the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to explain the rationale behind permitting such safaris within tiger reserves and national parks. Until further orders, the authorities are restrained from making any constructions within the core areas of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Human life is equally important as protection of the environment; Projects necessary for country's economic development can't be stalled. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102

The contest between development and environmental concerns is ever ongoing. While there is no doubt that ecology and environment need to be protected for the future generations, at the same time, development projects cannot be stalled, which are necessary not only for the economic development of the country, but at times for the safety of the citizens as well. No doubt that the protection of environment and ecology are important. However, at the same time, it cannot be denied that human life is also equally important. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102

Evidence Law

'It's quality & not quantity of witnesses which matters': Supreme Court relies on solitary eyewitness testimony to affirm sentence. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Marriage

Conviction u/s 498A IPC not sustainable when marriage is found to be null & void. P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Medical

MBBS: Supreme Court imposes Rs 2.5 crores penalty on medical college for illegal admissions; protects students. National Medical Commission v. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Motor Vehicle

License necessary to operate as cab aggregator: Supreme Court asks uber to apply for license from Maharashtra Govt. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Motor Vehicles Act | Aggregators License - States may keep in mind centre's guidelines while framing rules. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100

Murder Trial

Murder Trial - Once prosecution establishes 'last seen theory', the accused is bound to give explanations. Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Practice and Procedure

When a party wants to challenge the constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail the grounds on which the validity of the statute is sought to be challenged. In absence of the specific pleadings to that effect, Court cannot go into the issue of the validity of statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the law made by the Legislature unless it is specifically challenged by incorporating specific grounds of challenge in the pleadings. The reason is that there is always a presumption of the constitutionality of laws. The burden is always on the person alleging unconstitutionality to prove it. For that purpose, the challenge has to be specifically pleaded by setting out the specific grounds on which the challenge is made. A Constitutional Court cannot casually interfere with legislation made by a competent Legislature only by drawing an inference from the pleadings that the challenge to the validity is implicit. The State gets a proper opportunity to defend the legislation only if the State is made aware of the grounds on which the legislation is sought to be challenged. (Para 14) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Review

The provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed. (Para 15) Pancham Lal Pandey v. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Tax

'Charitable purpose' not limited to 'free medical relief': Supreme Court on Kerala Building Tax exemption; Overrules 2014 Judgment. Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Virtual Hearing

'Use Technology to facilitate virtual hearings, don't waste money spent on technical upgradation': Supreme Court to all Courts, Tribunals. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Supreme Court asks all courts, tribunals to facilitate virtual hearings too, by utilizing money spent on technical upgradation - in the COVID times, considerable monies have been spent on upgrading the technical infrastructure to facilitate hearing through the virtual mode- Apparently, in the current budget of the Government of India also large allocation has been made for technical upgradation of the judicial institutions. We at times are informed that there is some problems in Tribunals and some High Courts of the technical infrastructure being not used or dismantled. We would like to make it clear that monies spent on these upgradation cannot be put to a loss and we expect all Judicial Forums, Tribunals, District Courts and High Courts to utilize the technical infrastructure which is available to the best extent possible which would facilitate lawyers attending proceedings either physically or virtually depending on their convenience. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 99

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Army Act, 1950; Sections 45 and 63 - Miscellanious application filed by UoI seeking clarification of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39) - This Court was neither called upon nor has it ventured to pronounce on the effect of Sections 45 and 63 of the 1950 Act as also the corresponding provisions in other Acts or any other provisions of the Acts. We only make this position clear. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Building Tax Act 1975 (Kerala); Explanation to Section 3(1) - 'Charitable purpose' not limited to 'free medical relief'- The Explanation goes to indicate that ‘charitable purposes’ includes and is, therefore, not confined to the relief of the poor and free medical relief. Consequently, the decision in SH Medical Centre Hospital vs State Of Kerala & Ors (2014) 11 SCC 381 to the extent of the interpretation which is placed on the Explanation to Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 does not correctly reflect the position in law which is clarified above. The decision in SH Medical Centre Hospital is, therefore, overruled to the above extent. (Para 10) Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Building Tax Act 1975 (Kerala); Explanation to Section 3(1) - Section 3(1)(b) provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to buildings which are used ‘principally’ for specific purposes, including among them, ‘charitable purposes’. The expression “principally” conveys the meaning of that which is the dominant purpose. The interpretation placed by the two-Judge Bench on the expression “principally used for charitable purposes” does not call for interference in view of the statutory language used in Section 3(1). Principal use refers to the dominant substantive use as distinguished from an ancillary use. (Para 9) Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - Supreme Court endorses Delhi High Court judgment upholding Section 9D - Pulls up cigarette company for protracting proceedings - Asks it to pay Rs 5 lakh cost to any charitable organisation involved in providing help, assistance and relief to children suffering from cancer. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 - Remand - An order of remand prolongs and delays the litigation and hence, should not be passed unless the appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the evidence on record is not sufficient to dispose of the matter for reasons like lack of adequate opportunity of leading evidence to a party, where there had been no real trial of the dispute or there is no complete or effectual adjudication of the proceedings, and the party complaining has suffered material prejudice on that account. Where evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be rendered on appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand should not be passed remitting the matter to the lower court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is essential. The first appellate court, if required, can also direct the trial court to record evidence and finding on a particular aspect/issue in terms of Rule 25 to Order XLI, which then can be taken on record for deciding the case by the appellate court. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 33, Order XX Rule 4(2), 5; Order XLI Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 - Remand - High Court passed order of remand observing that the judgment of the trial court was not written as per the mandate of Section 33 and Rule 4(2) and 5 of Order XX of the Code, as the discussion and reasoning on certain aspects was not detailed and elaborate - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: This is not a case where the evidence is not adduced and on record. In fact, the first portion of the judgment of the High Court elaborately records the contention of the parties and the facts and evidence relied by the parties - First appeal restored before High Court. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 164 - Non-examination of the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. also has no relevance or bearing to the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for the Investigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during trial. (Para 22) Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 397-401 - In an appeal/revision, the High court could have set aside the order of acquittal only if the findings as recorded by the trial Court were perverse or impossible. (Para 7) P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Constitution of India - Article 243R - The Constitution has imposed a restriction in terms of which nominated members who are brought in on account of their special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration do not have the right to vote- The same restriction finds statutory recognition in Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The above provisions indicate that persons who are nominated under the sub-clause shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Corporation. The Constitution and the Act place value on their experience but the right to vote is not granted to them at meetings of the Corporation. (Para 11) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government of India. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 170 - Article 170 deals with only the State Legislature. It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories. The reason is that the Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A and not by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI. (Para 23) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament is empowered by law to create a body of legislature for the Union territories of Puducherry and J&K.- Even if the law made by Parliament creating a body of legislature for Union territories of Puducherry and J&K has the effect of amending certain parts of the Constitution, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - When an order has been passed by the highest Court of the country, there is no occasion for the Collector to seek permission for implementation of the orders passed by this Court. Junagadh Municipal Corporation v. Adarsh Cooperative Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Evidence Act 1872 - Last Seen Theory - Once the theory of “last seen together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased-If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence. (Paras 6 to 9) Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Evidence Act, 1872 - It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters. (Para 21) Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. (Para 6) Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Aggregators License - The Guidelines issued by the Central Government in 2020 are only of persuasive value and are not mandatory. The ultimate decision on granting a license and formulating rules lies with the State Government, who may consider the Guidelines while making their decision- When the State Government formulates rules in pursuance of its power under Section 96, it may also bear in mind the Guidelines which have been framed by the Union Government in 2020. (Para 8, 9) Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 93 - No person can continue as an aggregator in the absence of a licence- Supreme Court directs Uber to apply for license. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 93, 96 - Cab aggregators license- Supreme Court directs State of Maharashtra to expeditiously frame the rules on granting aggregators license so as to avoid litigation and uncertainty. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Municipal Corporation Act (Delhi) - Delhi Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations - These provisions make it abundantly clear that the election of the Mayor has to be held first. The elected Mayor is then required to preside over the election of the Deputy Mayor as the presiding authority. Consequently, with this clarification, it must be noted that the election of the Mayor shall be conducted first in the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Once the Mayor is elected, the elected Mayor shall be the presiding authority for the purpose of the election of the Deputy Mayor. (Para 12) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court affirms sentence and conviction of accused for murder based on solitary eyewitness testimony. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - When marriage has been found to be null and void, the conviction under Section 498A IPC would not be sustainable. (Para 7) P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations 1998; Regulation 19(3) - There is a patent error on the part of the Tribunal in interpreting the Regulations. The Tribunal held that the role of the respondent, who was a Company Secretary, compliance officer, was limited to redressing the grievances of investors. In arriving at the finding, the Tribunal has relied upon the latter part of Regulation 19(3) which deals with redressal of the grievances of investors. The crucial point which has been missed by the Tribunal is that the compliance officer is also required to ensure compliance with the buyback regulations. Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations expressly so stipulates. (Para 11) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110
2. Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 109
3. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112
4. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102
5. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105
6. CCE and ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 106
7. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107
8. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98
9. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104
10. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117
11. Junagadh Municipal Corporation v. Adarsh Cooperative Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 103
12. Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118
13. National Medical Commission v. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 113
14. P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116
15. Pancham Lal Pandey v. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 111
16. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 6 Feb 2023 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 99
17. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115
18. Ram Gopal Mansharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120
19. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100
20. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101
21. Shankar Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 114
22. Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119
23. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108