SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Auction

Possession of license to do business in shop does not entitle party to allotment of auction platform as matter of right. Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Constitution

Petition under article 32 to challenge a binding judgment not maintainable. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Contempt

Courts should not summon the appearance of officials at the “Drop of the Hat”. State of U.P. v. Prahalad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Criminal Law

Section 438 Cr.P.C. | Can HCs refuse to entertain anticipatory bail pleas for not exhausting Sessions Court remedy? Supreme Court to Consider. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Section 319 Cr.P.C. power is to be exercised only if strong & cogent evidence occurs against a person. Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Sex with minor wife: Supreme Court acquits husband of rape relying on exception 2 to Sec 375 IPC. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Written statement of the accused has to be considered in the light of prosecution evidence. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Section 313 Cr.P.C.: Supreme Court Summarises 10 well-settled principles. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Mere intimidation to silence kidnapped child victim not sufficient to prove threat to life & limb. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Education

Post graduate degree from an open university without undergoing a basic degree course is not valid. P. Raman v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Electricity

Supreme Court upholds 'Change in Law' compensation for Adani Power; Flays State DISCOMs for taking a stand contrary to Union Govt. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Evidence

Extra-Judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, independent corroboration needed. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Insolvency

Reliance Home Finance Insolvency: Supreme Court allows debenture holders to be covered under resolution plan of Authum Investments. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173

Mines & Minerals

Collector is competent authority to cancel lease deed under Rule 51(7) OMMC Rules. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Service Law

Compassionate Appointment - Principles summarized. (Para 7.2) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Compassionate Appointment - Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. (Para 7.5) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Compassionate Appointment - Delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment. Government officials are to act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Compulsory retirement order can be set aside if it's found to be punitive & was passed to circumvent disciplinary proceedings. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Supreme Court sets aside order of CBDT passed to compulsorily retire a gazetted officer-any exercise of power that exceeds the parameters prescribed by law or is motivated on account of extraneous or irrelevant factors or is driven by malicious intent or is on the face of it, so patently arbitrary that it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, must be struck down -In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public. (Para 34) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Tax

The Supreme Court grants relief to ITAT member whose appointment was delayed for not filing income tax returns. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Wildlife

The Supreme Court forms a committee to oversee transfer/import of wild animals in India. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Environment and Wildlife Protection - Supreme Court extends the jurisdiction of a committee constituted by the Tripura High Court to oversee transfer of wild animals pan-India- Court directs that all State and Central Authorities shall forthwith report seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive wild animals to the Committee and the Committee shall be at liberty to recommend transfer of ownership of captive animals or of seized wild animals to any willing rescue centre or zoo for their immediate welfare, care and rehabilitation- The Committee may also consider the request for approval, dispute or grievance, concerning transfer or import into India or procurement or welfare of wild animals by any rescue or rehabilitation centre or zoo. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 438 - Is it necessary to exhaust remedy available in Sessions Court before approaching High Court?- Whether the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 has discretion not to entertain such an application on the ground that the applicant must first apply to the Court of Sessions - SC to consider. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - Power under Section 319 ought to be exercised sparingly and would require much stronger evidence than near probability of the accused person’s complicity. The test elucidated by the Constitution Bench is as under -The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - It is optional for the accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility. (Para 16) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Iudicial experience has shown that more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either the accused elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions with stereotypes like ‘false’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘incorrect’, etc. Many a time, this does more harm than good to the cause of the accused. For instance, if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the accused. Though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances. (Para 16) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Settled principles summarized. (Para 15) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 (5) - Once a written statement is filed by the accused under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court marks it as exhibit, such statement must be treated as part of the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) read with Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. (Para 17) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal- Scope of interference - Unless such a finding is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Insolvency of Reliance Home Finance Ltd (RHFL) - the Supreme Court allowed the Resolution Plan (RP) proposed by Authum Investments and Infrastructure Ltd. (AIIL) to cover the debenture holders of RHFL - the plan will not cover dissenting debenture holders - the dissenting debenture holders should be provided an option to accept the terms of the resolution plan who proposed such acquisition or they can pursue other legal remedies to recover their dues. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be maintained in order to challenge a binding judgment of the Supreme Court. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - While it is open to the High court to come to any conclusion on the basis of the pleadings and materials available on record, it is not open to the Court to summon the appearance of the officials at the drop of the hat. State of U.P. v. Prahalad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Electricity Act, 2003 - Compensation for "Change in Law" clause in PPA - SC dismisses petition filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited challenging the ‘Change in Law’ compensation granted by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to Adani Power Maharashtra Limited and GMR Warora Energy Limited-we find that the stand taken by the DISCOMS that, since the loss being sustained by the generating companies is on account of non-fulfillment of obligation by CIL/Coal Companies, they should be relegated to the remedy available to them in law against the CIL/Coal Companies, is totally unreasonable. The claim is based on change of NCDP 2007 by NCDP 2013, which, undisputedly, is covered by the term ‘Change in Law. (Para 151) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Electricity Act, 2003 - The Court took note of the fact that the DISCOMS (Distribution Companies) which are instrumentalities of the State had taken contrary view to that of the Union Government, which contemplates that the generators would be entitled to pass-through for the coal required to be imported or purchased from the open market on the ground of Change in Law. Referring to Central Warehousing Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) And Ors. (2022), the Court observed that the Apex Court had deprecated the practice of different instrumentalities of the State taking contradictory / different positions / stands on the same issue - We have come across a number of matters wherein concurrent orders passed by the Regulatory Body and the Appellate Forum are assailed. Such a litigation would, in fact, efface the purpose of the Electricity Act. As already discussed herein above, one of the major reasons for the enactment of the Electricity Act was the deterioration in performance of the State Electricity Boards. (Para 150) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Evidence Act 1872 - Circumstantial Evidence - The law with regard to conviction in the case of circumstance evidence – Explained. (Para 8 to 10) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act 1872 - It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act, 1872 - Extra-judicial Confession - It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. (Para 15) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963; Rule 11 - Age of retirement of the Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) - In terms of the provisions, a member of ITAT to continue in the post till the age of 62 years. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The Supreme Court grants relief to ITAT member whose appointment was delayed for not filing income tax returns and allowed to continue in the post till the age of 62 years as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961. Although she had applied in pursuance of a notification issued in 2013, she was given appointment only in 2018, as there was a dispute regarding non-filing of income tax returns by her with respect to the relevant assessment year (2010-11). In June 2017, the Calcutta High Court had granted her relief by holding that she cannot be excluded merely on the ground that she had not filed income tax returns. In the meantime, the Centre had brought in new rules for appointment to Tribunals, namely Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017. The letter of appointment was issued to her in terms of the 2017 Rules, fixing her term as three years. The bench held that the right of the applicant to appointment had been crystallized even before the 2017 Rules. Therefore, the appointment of the applicant would be governed by the position as it existed prior to the 2017 Rules. In other words, her tenure shall be extended until she attains the age of 62 years. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981 - Merely because a person is having a licence and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop. (Para 6.6) Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (Orissa) - Rule 51(7) - Collector is the competent authority to cancel a lease deed for non-production of solvency certificate. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Penal Code 1860; Section 375 Exception 2 - Sex with minor wife aged 16 years - Supreme Court acquits husband relying on exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 364A – Kidnapping for ransom vis-à-vis kidnapping simpliciter – Proof of kidnapping for ransom – Punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as such has a higher evidentiary threshold – Three stages or components, namely, first, kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention; second, threat to cause death or hurt, and the use of kidnapping, abduction, or detention with a demand to pay the ransom; and third, when the demand is not met, then causing death – Fulfilment of second ingredient, namely, threat to cause death or hurt – Intimidation of child victim, for the purpose of making them silent not adequate – Held, prosecution’s case did not prove second ingredient beyond reasonable doubt as a result of the victim’s statement being subsequently modified to reflect crucial differences that would enable the prosecution to drive home the kidnapping for ransom charge – Further held, conviction under Section 364A ought to be altered in exercise of power under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure into the lesser offence under Section 363 – Appeal partly allowed. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules - In 2019, the Supreme Court struck down the 2017 Tribunal Rules in the case Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank and directed that the appointments should be made as per the provisions of the parent statute. Later, in the 2020 Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court dealt with the subsequent Rules framed by the Centre in 2020 in relation to tribunal appointments. In July 2021, the Supreme Court clarified in the Madras Bar Association case, that all appointments made before 4 April 2021 would be governed by the parent statutes. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173
2. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165
3. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174
4. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177
5. Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180
6. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178
7. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166
8. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164
9. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171
10. P. Raman v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 169
11. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168
12. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167
13. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170
14. State of U.P. v. Prahalad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 176
15. State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175
16. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179
17. Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172