Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (Citations 488 to 516) (May 16 - May 22, 2022)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 20 - The appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional 'seat' already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator. The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held - Once the jurisdictional 'seat' of arbitration is fixed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, then, without the express mutual consent of the parties to the arbitration, 'the seat' cannot be changed. (Para 29) BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.P. Singla Constructions, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re­employed Pensioners) Order, 1986; Para 8 - On re­employment in the government service, an employee who was serving in the Indian Army/in the Armed Forces not entitled to his pay scales at par with his last drawn pay - The reference to the last drawn pay in the armed forces is only to ensure that the pay computed in the civil post in the manner envisaged in para 8 of CCS Order does not exceed the basic pay (including the deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) last drawn by the personnel in the armed forces. (Para 5-6) Union of India v. Anil Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 - Appeal against judgment of High Court that affirmed the Trial Court order setting aside the ex parte decree but held that the defendants cannot be permitted to file their written statement - Allowed - It should have been left to the Trial Court to consider the prayer of defendants whether to allow them to file written statement or not. Sudhir Ranjan Patra v Himansu Sekhar Srichandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 - When an ex­parte decree is set aside and the suit is restored to file, the defendants cannot be relegated to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit when he was placed ex­parte. He would be debarred from filing any written statement in the suit, but then he can participate in the hearing of the suit inasmuch cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff and address arguments. (Para 6) Sudhir Ranjan Patra v Himansu Sekhar Srichandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First Schedule - If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be non­cognizable. (Para 5.3) Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2) - The sentencing hearing contemplated under Section 235(2), is not confined merely to oral hearing but intended to afford a real opportunity to the prosecution as well as the accused, to place on record facts and material relating to various factors on the question of sentence and if interested by either side, to have evidence adduced to show mitigating circumstances to impose a lesser sentence or aggravating grounds to impose death penalty. (Para 205 -212) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 24 - Public Prosecutor - A public prosecutor occupies a statutory office of high regard. Rather than a part of the investigating agency, they are instead, an independent statutory authority who serve as officers to the court. The role of the public prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to conducting a fair trial, and not for a "thirst to reach the case in conviction". (Para 171 - 177) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - No express executive power has been conferred on the Centre either under the Constitution or law made by the Parliament in relation to Section 302. In the absence of such specific conferment, it is the executive power of the State that extends with respect to Section 302, assuming that the subject-matter of Section 302 is covered by Entry 1 of List III. A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case" cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offences alleged. (Para 6.3) Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order in such matters. (Para 6.2) Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - When an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of Section 438 CrPC. What has been observed and said in relation to Section 438 CrPC applies with more vigour to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 21) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - Non-exercise of the power by Governor under Article 161 is not immune from judicial review -Given petitions under Article 161 pertain to the liberty of individuals, inexplicable delay not on account of the prisoners is inexcusable as it contributes to adverse physical conditions and mental distress faced by a prisoner, especially when the State Cabinet has taken a decision to release the prisoner by granting him the benefit of remission / commutation of his sentence. (Para 20) A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters relating to commutation / remission of sentences under Article 161. (Para 19) A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21- Fair Trial - It must be emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 27) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 136, 225 and 227 - Even when a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is provided by a statute against the decision of a tribunal, the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before the High Court remains unextinguished. (Para 24) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226 and 227 - The power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32 are part of the basic structure of our constitution and the same is inviolable. (Para 12) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(g) - Insurance - Deficiency in Service - When the insured had produced the photocopy of certificate of registration and the registration particulars as provided by the RTO, solely on the ground that the original certificate of registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non settlement of claim can be said to be deficiency in service. (Para 4) Gurmel Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 18 - The value attached to the confessional statement, while overriding the provisions of CrPC and the Evidence Act in terms of Section 18 of MCOCA, cannot be gainsaid and cannot be ignored. (Para 18) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(e) - The expression 'other advantage' cannot be read in a restrictive manner and is required to be given its full effect. The High Court has rightly said that there could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself. (Para 14.2-14.4) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(e) - Actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of organised crime, when undertaken by an individual singly or jointly as part of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Threat of violence or even intimidation or even coercion would fall within the mischief. (Para 14.1) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(d) - The matter of settlement because of cross-cases or a matter of acquittal because of the witnesses not turning up, could hardly be of any relevance so far as Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA is concerned - What is significant and pertinent is the involvement of the person concerned in the referred activity and filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance in the offence as predicated. Acquittal or discharge is of no significance. (Para 17.5) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(d) - The threshold requirement in terms of clause (d) is that of the activity/activities undertaken by the accused persons either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate, which involves a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more and in respect of which, more than one charge-sheets have been filed before the competent Court within 10 years and cognizance had been taken. (Para 17.1) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Copyright Act, 1957; Section 63 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First Schedule - Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non­bailable offence. (Para 7) Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Criminal Investigation - Test Identification Parade - TIPs should normally be conducted at the earliest possible time to eliminate the chance of accused being shown to witnesses before the identification parade, which might otherwise affect such witnesses' memory - There is no hard and fast rule that delay or failure in holding the TIP ipso facto renders the evidence inadmissible or unacceptable; it however, affects the credibility and weight attached to such identification.(Para 100) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles applicable to appreciation of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence discussed. [Referred to Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 et al.] (149-151) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - DNA Reports - The need to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence - Being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case - This court has relied on DNA reports, in the past, where the guilt of an accused was sought to be established. Notably, the reliance was to corroborate. (Para 121) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Draft Criminal Rules of Practice, 2021 - The prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules. (Para 179) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Sanction - The validity of sanction could always be determined by the Trial Court during the course of trial where sanctioning authority could be examined and the appellant will have sufficient opportunity to contest the same, including that of cross-examining the sanctioning authority. (Para 18.2) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - 1988 Road Rage Case - Sentence awarded to Navjot Singh Sidhu enhanced to one year imprisonment - When a 25 year old man, who was an international cricketer, assaults a man more than twice his age and inflicts, even with his bare hands, a severe blow on his (victim's) head, the unintended consequence of harm would still be properly attributable to him as it was reasonably foreseeable - The indulgence was not required to be shown at the stage of sentence by only imposing a sentence of fine and letting him go without any imposition of sentence. Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment - While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large - A long period had lapsed by the time the appeal was decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which was disproportionate and inadequate. (Para 25 -32) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Public opinion neither an objective circumstance relating to crime, nor the criminal, and the courts must exercise judicial restraint and play a balancing role. (Para 227) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - The omission of some of the prosecution witnesses to mention a particular fact, or corroborate something, which is deposed to by other witnesses, therefore, does not ipso facto favour an accused. What is important, however, is whether the omission to depose about a fact is so fundamental that the prosecution version becomes shaky and incredulous - unless it is shown that the omission to examine a witness, who had previously participated during the investigation and whose statement was recorded by the police, undermines the prosecution case, or impacts on it significantly, the foundation of the fact or facts which are sought to be proved, remains unshaken as long as that fact is deposed to or spoken about by other witnesses, whose testimonies are to be seen in their own terms. Therefore, the omission to examine the individuals left out, but who the prosecution claimed, had participated during the investigation, did not affect its case, as far as the circumstances held to have been established by it, are concerned. (Para 159-161) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Death Sentence - Appellants' conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Death Sentence - Practical guidelines issued to collect mitigating circumstances of the accused at the trial stage- The trial court must elicit information from the accused and the state -The state, must - for an offence carrying capital punishment - at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused - State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused - Information regarding the accused's jail conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities the accused has involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities. (Para 213-217) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Education - Private Medical Colleges - Capitation Fee - The management of private medical colleges are strictly prohibited from accepting payment of fees in cash, in order to avoid charging of capitation fee - Directions to curb capitation fee menace issued - A web-portal under the aegis of Supreme Court has to be set-up wherein any information about the private medical colleges charging capitation fees can be furnished by the students - While fixing fee, the Fee Fixation Committees of the States should take into account all the components of fee, leaving no scope for managements to charge any additional amounts apart from what has been prescribed by the fee fixation committee from time to time. (Para 13-15) Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust v. Committee for Fixation of Fee Structure Of Private Professional Colleges, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 501

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503

Fair Investigation - Supreme Court criticises Madras High Court for keeping preliminary enquiry report in sealed cover without sharing with the accused- "When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover. (Para 28) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Fair investigation - The principles of natural justice demanded that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to defend his case based on the material that had exonerated him initially, which was originally accepted by the State. (Para 22) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Goods and Services Tax (GST) - The recommendations of the GST council are not binding on the Union and the State Governments. The Parliament intended that the recommendations of the GST Council will have persuasive value. Both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can equally legislate on matters of Goods and Service Tax. Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500

Hindu Law - Hindu woman's right to maintenance is a tangible right against the property which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife. Such right was recognized and enjoined under the Shastric Hindu Law - It was not and is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity. (Para 14, 20) Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14(1) - The words "possessed by" used in Section 14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and include the state of owning a property, even though the Hindu woman is not in actual or physical possession of the same - The possession of the widow, must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title, because the section does not contemplate the possession of any rank trespasser without any right or title. (Para 14) Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14(1) - Where a Hindu widow is found to be in exclusive settled legal possession of the HUF property, that itself would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance, more particularly when the surviving co-parcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance. (Para 20) Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - The provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are not alien to and are applicable to proceedings under the IBC; and (ii) An acknowledgement in a balance sheet without a qualification can furnish a legitimate basis for determining as to whether the period of limitation would stand extended, so long as the acknowledgement was within a period of three years from the original date of default. (Para 13) State Bank of India v. Krishidhan Seeds, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - NOIDA is an operational creditor under the provisions of the IBC Code. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Anand Sonbhadra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 491

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14, 238 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - After the CIRP is initiated, all actions including any action under the SARFAESI Act to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest are prohibited. (Para 24, 35) Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 238 - IBC is a complete Code in itself - The provisions of the IBC would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. (Para 25-27) Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Insurance - Insurance companies refusing claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds - While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control. (Para 4.1) Gurmel Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506

Interpretation of Statutes - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - the provisions of MCOCA need to be strictly construed and for their application, an unlawful activity has to fall within the periphery of organised crime. (Para 12-12.3) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Interpretation of Statutes - Penal Statutes - The rule of strict construction of a penal statute or a special penal statute is not intended to put all the provisions in such a tight iron cast that they become practically unworkable, and thereby, the entire purpose of the law is defeated. (Para 12.4-12.6) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Legal Services Act, 1987; Section 22C, 22D - Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory functions and is empowered to decide the dispute between the parties on merits - Conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA Act are mandatory in nature - Even if the opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to follow the step-by-step procedure - Main goal is conciliation and settlement of disputes in relation to public utilities, with a decision on merits always being the last resort. (Para 26-28) Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Legal Services Act, 1987; Sections 19 - 22E - Two different types of Lok Adalats - (1) Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act, having no adjudicatory power, which can only conduct conciliatory proceedings (2) Permanent Lok Adalat, established under Section 22-B(1) of the LSA Act in respect of public utility services, which can carry out both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions, subject to the procedure to be followed under Section 22-C of the LSA Act. (Para 28-31) Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Legal Services Act,1987; Sections 19 - 22E - Similarities between Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats - (i) they can both attempt conciliation proceedings with the parties before them, and can pass awards recording the terms of settlement agreed upon by the parties (Section 20(3) and 22- C(7)); (ii) in doing do, they are both bound by principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles (Section 20(4) and 22-D); and (iii) their awards, deemed to be decrees of courts, will be final and cannot be challenged in an appeal (Section 21 and 22-E). - Permanent Lok Adalat is limited to disputes regarding public utility services, crucially, its powers are wider than the Lok Adalat in many respects. (Para 21- 22) Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Medical Negligence - In the proceedings for damages due to professional negligence, the question of intention does not arise. (Para 29) Harnek Singh v. Gurmit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511

Medical Negligence - Opinion and findings of the MCI regarding the professional conduct of a doctor have great relevance while considering claim for compensation on the basis of medical negligence. (Para 35) Harnek Singh v. Gurmit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 - Supreme Court lifts curbs on iron sale and export from mines in Karnataka - Relaxes the directions issued in 2011. Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509

Municipalities Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 (Chhattisgarh); Rule 7 - Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 - A Shiksha Karmi cannot claim parity in pay-scale with that of Municipal teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work - They are governed by the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 under which they were appointed, are entitled to pay-scales under the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 only. (Para 7) Dr. K.M. Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 512

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Establishment of NGT - The role of the NGT was not simply adjudicatory, but it also had the equally vital role which is preventive, ameliorative, or of the remedial category. (Para 6-10) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 14 and 22 - NGT under Section 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (Para 38(A), 12-15) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 22 - The remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India - It cannot be seen as denial of access to justice to the litigants in the field of environmental law. (Para 38(B), 24-31) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 3 - Establishment of NGT - Constitutional validity upheld - Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a case of excessive delegation of power to the Central Government. (Para 38(C), 32-37) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 3, 4 - The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per Page 37 of 37 exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State - Prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur is unmerited and is rejected. (Para 38(D), 16-23) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Expeditious disposal of cases - Establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in 5 districts of 5 states with the highest pendency (namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh) directed - Guidelines covering the pilot study issued. In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304A - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case - For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 - Even though any harm might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must be attached if the person suffers a grievous hurt or dies as a result thereof. (Para 32) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 - The hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same. This may be understood where a blow may be given either by a physically fit person or to a more aged person. (Para 24) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Principle of Restitution - An unsuccessful litigant who had the benefit of an interim order in his favour cannot encash or take advantage of the same - Restitutionary jurisdiction is inherent in every court, to neutralise the advantage of litigation. (Para 15 - 16) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Public Employment - Direct Recruitment - A candidate who has applied does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end. Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right. This is, however, different, from holding that the employer is free to act in an arbitrary manner. Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 514

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 11 - In a case where on the date of commencement of RFCTLARR Act, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of 2013 Act and they shall be entitled to the compensation only under the 1894 Act - The landowners cannot be permitted to take advantage of the interim order obtained by them due to which the Authority could not declare the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and thereafter contend that in that view of the matter, he/they shall be paid the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, under which a higher compensation will be available to them on determination of the compensation under the Act, 2013. (Para 16-17) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Observations made in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 summarized - These observations would be aptly applicable while interpreting and considering Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. (Para 12-14) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rules 8, 9 - The sale would be complete only when the auction purchaser makes the entire payment and the authorised officer, exercising the power of sale, shall issue a certificate of sale of the property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to the said Rules - The sale certificate does not require registration and the sale process is complete on issuance of the sale certificate. (Para 32-33) Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Service Law - Public Servants - Conditions of service of a public servant, including matters of promotion and seniority are governed by the extant rules - The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that, "the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules", does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under part XIV of the Constitution - The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services. (Para 10, 37.3) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order IV Rule 7(b)(i) - If the Vakalatnama is executed in presence of the Advocate­ on­ Record himself, it is his duty to certify that the execution was made in his presence. This certification is not an empty formality. If he knows the litigant personally, he can certify the execution. If he does not personally know the litigant, he must verify the identity of the person signing the Vakalatnama from the documents such as Aadhaar or PAN card. (Para 14) Suresh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order IV Rule 7(b)(ii) - If the client has not signed the Vakalatnama in his presence, the AOR must ensure that it bears his endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7- It is not an empty formality and therefore, it is the duty of AORs to ensure that due compliance is made with the said requirement. (Para 14) Suresh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490

Nominal Index

1. A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494
2. Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516
3. BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.P. Singla Constructions, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493
4. Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499
5. Dr. K.M. Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 512
6. Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 514
7. Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504
8. Gurmel Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506
9. Harnek Singh v. Gurmit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511
10. In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508
11. Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496
12. Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498
13. Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505
14. Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
15. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510
16. Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515
17. Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489
18. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Anand Sonbhadra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 491
19. Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust v. Committee For Fixation of Fee Structure Of Private Professional Colleges, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 501
20. S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507
21. Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503
22. Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509
23. Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488
24. State Bank of India v. Krishidhan Seeds, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497
25. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502
26. Sudhir Ranjan Patra v Himansu Sekhar Srichandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492
27. Suresh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490
28. Union of India v. Anil Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513
29. Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500