Supreme Court Weekly Digest WIth Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index - (July 11 -July 17, 2022)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - National Highways Act, 1956; Section 3G(5) - While examining the award within the parameters permissible under Section 34 of Page 39 of 73 Act, 1996 and while examining the determination of compensation as provided under Sections 26 and 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the concept of just compensation for the acquired land should be kept in view while taking note of the award considering the sufficiency of the reasons given in the award for the ultimate conclusion. (Para 24) National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 23(2A), 34 - Counter-claim of a party cannot be dismissed merely because the claims were not notified before invoking the arbitration. National Highway Authority of India v. Transstroy (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586

Army Act, 1950 - Army Regulations - Regulation 349 - Pending the Court of Inquiry, an opportunity of hearing not required to be afforded before suspending Army officers - Under Regulation 349 also, there is no requirement of such a procedure to be followed. Col. Vineet Raman Sharda v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 606

Bail - Economic Offences - The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another - It is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. (Para 66) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Bail - The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails. (Para 72-73(a)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 10 - The principle that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus shall be applicable only in a case where parties sought to be added as defendants are necessary and / or proper parties. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and / or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus. (Para 9) Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - If, by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment. It would also result in misjoinder of causes of action. (Para 8) Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 - On setting aside the ex­parte judgment and decree, though the defendants who had not filed the written statement, can be permitted to participate in the suit and cross­examine the witnesses. (Para 3.1) Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XV Rule 5 - As per these provisions, in a suit by a lessor for eviction of a lessee after the determination of lease and for recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant is under the obligation: (1) to deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on or before the first hearing of the suit; and (2) to regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week of its accrual throughout the pendency of the suit. The consequence of default in making either of these deposits is that the Court may strike off his defence. The expression 'first hearing' means the date for filing written statement or the date for hearing mentioned in the summons; and in case of multiple dates, the last of them. The expression 'monthly amount due' means the amount due every month, whether as rent or damages for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent after making no other deduction except taxes, if paid to the local authority on lessor's account. It is, however, expected that before making an order striking off defence, the Court would consider the representation of the defendant, if made within 10 days of the first hearing or within 10 days of the expiry of one week from the date of accrual of monthly amount. (Para 9.1) Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XV Rule 5 - it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that by merely denying the title of plaintiff or relationship of landlord- tenant/lessor-lessee, a defendant of the suit of the present nature could enjoy the property during the pendency of the suit without depositing the amount of rent/damages. (Para 14) Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 1 - 4 - While considering whether the suit/appeal has abated due to non­bringing the legal representatives of plaintiffs/defendants or not, the Court has to examine if the right to sue survives against the surviving respondents - Court has to consider the effect of abatement of the appeal against each of the respondents in case of multiple respondents. (Para 9- 9.2) Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41 - Scope - Even for a cognizable offense, an arrest is not mandatory as can be seen from the mandate of this provision. (Para 21 -23) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 41, 41A - The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail - The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 - Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action - State Governments and the Union Territories to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code. (Para 73 (b-d)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) - Notwithstanding the existence of a reason to believe qua a police officer, the satisfaction for the need to arrest shall also be present - Both the elements of 'reason to believe' and 'satisfaction qua an arrest' are mandated and accordingly are to be recorded by the police officer. (Para 27) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 87-88 - Courts will have to adopt the procedure in issuing summons first, thereafter a bailable warrant, and then a non-bailable warrant may be issued- Issuing non-bailable warrants as a matter of course without due application of mind against the tenor of the provision. (Para 31-32) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 - There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. (Para 73 (e)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Limb of Article 21 - A duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the benefit of suspect. Such a right cannot be taken away even during any unforeseen circumstances. (Para 34) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 170 - Scope and ambit. (Para 36) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - Issuing a warrant may be an exception in which case the Magistrate will have to give reasons. (Para 37) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 209 - Power of the Magistrate to remand a person into custody during or until the conclusion of the trial - Since the power is to be exercised by the Magistrate on a case-to-case basis, it is his wisdom in either remanding an accused or granting bail. (Para 38) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 309 - Bail - While it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. (Para 41) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 374 (2) - Already admitted appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed on the ground that the accused is absconding. (Para 8) Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 374 (2) - Patna HC dismissed an appeal filed against conviction on the ground that appellant accused was absconding - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: The anguish expressed by the Division Bench about the brazen action of the appellant of absconding and defeating the administration of justice can be well understood. However, that is no ground to dismiss an appeal against conviction, which was already admitted for final hearing, for non-prosecution without adverting to merits -The impugned judgment set aside and the appeal remanded to the High Court for consideration on merits. Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 386 (e) - Power to make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper would be available, of course in appropriate cases falling under any of the four categories of appeals mentioned under clauses (a) to (d) - The twin provisos under clause (d) carry restrictions in the matter of exercise of power under clause (e), with respect to enhancement of sentence and infliction of punishment - The power thereunder can be exercised only in rare cases. (Para 18) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 386 (e) - Rape convict kept in prison beyond the period of sentence - When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment - Compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act/omission committed by its officers in the course of employment. Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - "Presumption of innocence" and "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" may not be available to the appellant who has suffered a conviction - The power exercisable under Section 389 is different from that of the one either under Section 437 or under Section 439 of the Code, pending trial- Delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred under Section 436A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail. (Para 42-44) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 428 - Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence or imprisonment - it cannot be lost sight that when reference is made in a set off for adjustment of periods, the reference is to proceedings within the country - the criminal law of the land does not have any extra-territorial application - thus, what happens in another country for some other trial, some other detention, in our view, would not be relevant for the purposes of the proceedings in the country - accused cannot claim a double benefit under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C - i.e., the same period being counted as part of the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the former offence and also being set off against the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the latter offence as well. [Para 50, 52] Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - Section 436A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigor as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. (Para 64) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - The word 'shall' clearly denotes the mandatory compliance of this provision - There is not even a need for a bail application in a case of this nature particularly when the reasons for delay are not attributable against the accused - While taking a decision the public prosecutor is to be heard, and the court, if it is of the view that there is a need for continued detention longer than one-half of the said period, has to do so. However, such an exercise of power is expected to be undertaken sparingly being an exception to the general rule. (Para 47) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - The word 'trial' will have to be given an expanded meaning particularly when an appeal or admission is pending - In a case where an appeal is pending for a longer time, to bring it under Section 436A, the period of incarceration in all forms will have to be reckoned, and so also for the revision. (Para 46) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - Scope - The jurisdictional Magistrate who otherwise has the jurisdiction to try a criminal case which provides for a maximum punishment of either life or death sentence, has got ample jurisdiction to consider the release on bail. (Para 53-55, 58) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - The first proviso to Section 437 facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm - This has to be applied while considering release on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be. (Para 58) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail Jurisdiction - cannot implead third party to proceedings - especially those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration - application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the cause of the concerned applicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with offence already registered against him and apprehending his arrest in connection with such a case for extraneous reasons or otherwise - in such proceedings, the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the Court - no attempt should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party much less beyond the scope of the complaint/FIR in question - even if the application is entertained by the High Court, the High Court should exercise circumspection in dealing with the application only in respect of matters which are relevant to decide the application and not to over-state facts or other matters unrelated to the applicant before the Court. Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 440 - It is a mandatory duty of the court to take into consideration the circumstances of the case and satisfy itself that it is not excessive. Imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of the release. In this connection, we would only say that Section 436, 437, 438 and 439 of the Code are to be read in consonance. Reasonableness of the bond and surety is something which the court has to keep in mind whenever the same is insisted upon, and therefore while exercising the power under Section 88 of the Code also the said factum has to be kept in mind. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 437, 439 - Bail - Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application. (Para 73 (k)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 440, 436A - Undertrials - The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release- While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind - An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court. (Para 73 (h-j)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - No mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Para 7) State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Constitution of India - Writ of Habeas Corpus in Cases of Child's Custody - in a petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus in a matter relating to a claim for custody of a child, the principal issue which should be taken into consideration is as to whether from the facts of the case, it can be stated that the custody of the child is illegal - whether the welfare of the child requires that his present custody should be changed and the child be handed over to the care and custody of any other person - whenever a question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of the minor child, the matter is to be decided not on consideration of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the child - welfare is an all-encompassing word - It includes material welfare - while material considerations have their place they are secondary matters - more important are the stability and the security, the loving and understanding care and guidance, the warm and compassionate relationships that are essential for the full development of the child's own character, personality and talents - the employment of the writ of Habeas Corpus in child custody cases is not pursuant to, but independent of any statute - the jurisdiction exercised by the court rests in such cases on its inherent equitable powers and exerts the force of the State, as parens patriae, for the protection of its minor ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry and the result sought to be accomplished call for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity - The primary object of a Habeas Corpus petition, as applied to minor children, is to determine in whose custody the best interests of the child will probably be advanced. [Para 75, 80, 81, 86, 88, 89] Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(d), 21 - When a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(1) (d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 17) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21 - Right to a fair and speedy trial is a facet of Article 21. (Para 40 -41) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - An order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. [Para 45] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - The accused "does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency". [Para 51, 52] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, yet it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights - mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation [Para 44, 47, 50] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - When CBI enquiry can be directed - CBI inquiry can be directed only in rare and exceptional cases -such prayer should not be granted on mere asking - though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or re- investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment - the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties - one factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies". [Para 44, 47, 50] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 142 - Clubbing of FIRs - FIRs lodged against accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Section 420 IPC etc) and other State enactments in various states - Directs clubbing of all the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible - Multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion - Scope discussed. (Para 28-37) Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeals - (i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. (ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. (iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. (iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it. (v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. (Para 23) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in criminal appeals by special leave discussed. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139A - Transfer - The likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer - Decision to transfer or not, to the Supreme Court or to one High Court, has to be taken with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances - No hard and fast rule or any structured formula is provided nor appears desirable. (Para 16) Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139A - Transfer Petitions seeking transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court - Dismissed - It appears just and proper that the petitions in the jurisdictional High Courts are decided with reference to their own factual background and the law applicable. Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 141 - Precedent - A subsequent decision, in which the earlier decisions were considered and distinguished by this Court, the subsequent decision of this Court was binding upon the High Court - Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7.3) Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Court can grant appropriate relief when there is some manifest illegality or where some palpable injustice is shown to have resulted. Such a power can be traced either to Article 142 of the Constitution of India or powers inherent as guardian of the Constitution. (Para 19) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 restated. (Para 33) Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1973; Order IX Rule 13 - High Court not to entertain a revision application challenging the ex­parte judgment and decree as there was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available. (Para 6-7) Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574

Constitution of Special Courts - The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously. (Para 73 (g)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance Claims - The delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation could be one of the several factors for holding an insurer guilty of deficiency in service. But it cannot be the only factor. (Para 24) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashikala J. Ayachi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - A person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court - The Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court. In Re Perry Kansagra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Vijay Mallya sentenced to 4 months imprisonment and Rs 2000 fine for contempt of court for disobedience of court orders- It is, well settled that apart from punishing the contemnor for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. The approach may require the court to pass directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by declaring said transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to see that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him- In a given case, to meet the ends of justice, the concept of purging of the contempt would call for complete disgorging of all the benefits secured as a result of actions which are found by the court to be contumacious. (Para 13) State Bank of India v. Dr. Vijay Mallya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575

Criminal Trial - Presumption of Innocence - Onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt before the Court -The agency to satisfy the Court that the arrest made was warranted and enlargement on bail is to be denied - Presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21, shall inure to the benefit of the accused. (Para 13-18) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Criminal Trial - Test Identification Parade - When no TIP was conducted the first version of the complainant reflected in the FIR would play an important role - It is required to be considered whether in the FIR and/or in the first version the eye­ witness either disclosed the identity and/or description of the accused on the basis of which he can recollect at the time of deposition and identify the accused for the first time in the Court Room - It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court. (Para 6.2 - 6.7) Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582

Criminal Trial - The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission - Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Evidence Act, 1872 - Ocular Evidence - Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case - In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. (Para 27-28) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - The conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Act, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Para 50) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8, 27 - Even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct would be relevant under Section 8 of the Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27. (Para 48) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act - (1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave informations and (4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible - Two conditions for application – (1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. (Para 42) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it. (Para 45-46) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Extradition Act, 1962 - Supreme Court holds that Union Government is bound to release Bombay Blast case convict Abu Salem by granting remission of him after he completes 25 years of sentence from the date on which he was detained for extradition to India (12.10.2005) as per the sovereign assurance given to Portugal. Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Extradition Act, 1962 - The separation of Judicial and Executive powers and the scheme of the Indian Constitution cannot bind the Indian courts in proceedings under the Extradition Act. Thus, the courts must proceed in accordance with law and impose the sentence as the law of the land requires, while simultaneously the Executive is bound to comply with its international obligations under the Extradition Act as also on the principle of comity of courts, which forms the basis of the extradition. [Para 39] Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10B(8) - For claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. (Para 14) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Appeal against the judgment of High Court of Gujarat whereby the warrant of authorization issued by Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was quashed - Allowed - The question as to whether such reasons are adequate or not is not a matter for the Court to review in a writ petition. The sufficiency of the grounds which induced the competent authority to act is not a justiciable issue. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure. The belief recorded alone is justiciable but only while keeping in view the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness. Such reasonableness is not a power to act as an appellate authority over the reasons to believe recorded. (Para 32) Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka); Section 29(4) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 18(1) - Person Interested - A subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a "person interested" for the purpose of determination of compensation - The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966 are both distinct and the provisions under both the Acts are distinguishable. (Para 7.3-7.4) Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Intended to consolidate and amend the laws with a view to reorganize Corporate Debtors and resolve insolvency in a time bound manner for maximization of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor - The statute deals with and/or tackles insolvency and bankruptcy. It is certainly not the object of the IBC to penalize solvent companies, temporarily defaulting in repayment of its financial debts, by initiation of CIRP. (Para 80 - 81) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Legislature has consciously differentiated between Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, as there is an innate difference between Financial Creditors, in the business of investment and financing, and Operational Creditors in the business of supply of goods and services. Financial credit is usually secured and of much longer duration. Such credits, which are often long term credits, on which the operation of the Corporate Debtor depends, cannot be equated to operational debts which are usually unsecured, of a shorter duration and of lesser amount. The financial strength and nature of business of a Financial Creditor cannot be compared with that of an Operational Creditor, engaged in supply of goods and services. The impact of the non-payment of admitted dues could be far more serious on an Operational Creditor than on a financial creditor. (Para 78) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7(5)(a) - Ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit an application under Section 7 of the IBC of the IBC and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition - It has to consider the grounds made out by the Corporate Debtor against admission, on its own merits. (Para 87 - 88) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Section 9(5)(a) mandatory - An application of an Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9(2) of the IBC is mandatorily required to be admitted if the application is complete in all respects and in compliance of the 28 requisites of the IBC and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, if notices for payment or the invoice has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor and no notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor. The IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an operational creditor. (Para 76) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7(5)(a) - The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has been conferred the discretion to admit the application of the Financial Creditor. If facts and circumstances so warrant, the Adjudicating Authority can keep the admission in abeyance or even reject the application. Of course, in case of rejection of an application, the Financial Creditor is not denuded of the right to apply afresh for initiation of CIRP, if its dues continue to remain unpaid - The Adjudicating Authority might examine the expedience of initiation of CIRP, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including the overall financial health and viability of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority may in its discretion not admit the application of a Financial Creditor. (Para 77 - 79) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Interpretation of Statutes - All interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act - This is applicable while interpreting any provision in any statute especially when the power under that provision is conferred to pass orders that may be just or proper. (Para 18) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Interpretation of Statutes - First and foremost principle of interpretation of a statute is the rule of literal interpretation - Purposive interpretation can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or if construed literally, the provision would nullify the object of the statute or otherwise lead to an absurd result. (Para 65 - 69) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Laws - In a taxing statute the provisions are to be read as they are and they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee - An assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. (Para 8, 11) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583

Interpretation of Statutes - While dealing with a welfare legislation, a purposive interpretation giving the benefit to the needy person being the intendment is the role required to be played by the court. (Para 57) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Judgments - Supreme Court advises High Courts to pronounce judgments without delay after concluding arguments -t is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved-Long delay in delivery of the judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parties in a case. (Para 6.2) State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Guidelines with respect to preliminary evaluation - appropriate and specific guidelines in this regard are required to be put in place - it open for the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015. [Para 87] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Proviso to Section 15 read as mandatory condition - for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts - where the Board is not comprising of a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the expression "may" in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and the Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts - however, in case the Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor. [Para 76] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Preliminary assessment on four aspects - mental capacity to commit the offence; physical capacity to commit the offence; ability to understand the consequences of the offence; and circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed. [Para 62] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - preliminary assessment requires holistic evaluation. [Para 65, 66] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Ability to understand the consequences of the offence - The language used in section 15 is "the ability to understand the consequences of the offence" - the expression used is in plurality i.e., "consequences" of the offence and, therefore, would not just be confined to the immediate consequence of the offence but impact/consequences for other people connected with the victim and the child and other far-reaching consequences in the future - This evaluation of 'mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences' of the child in conflict with law can, in no way, be relegated to the status of a perfunctory and a routine task. [Para 68, 69, 70, 71, 75] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Mental Capacity to commit offence and ability to understand the consequences of offence are different -The Board and the Children's Court apparently were of the view that the mental capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence were one and the same, that is to say that if the child had the mental capacity to commit the offence, then he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequences of the offence. This, in our considered opinion, is a grave error committed by them. [Para 67] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which are basically for the purpose of collection of stamp duty, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act - The market value of the land depends upon the location of the land; area of the land; whether the land is in a developed area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land and number of other advantageous and disadvantageous factors are required to be considered - There cannot be a uniform market value of the land for the purpose of determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 9-12) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 27A, 37 - When applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable in this case and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply. (Para 16.4) State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 27A, 37 - Appeal against Calcutta High Court order granted bail to a person accused under Sections 21(b)/29/27A of NDPS Act - Dismissed - No reason to consider interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions. State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Orders - Conditional Order - CAT while setting aside disciplinary proceedings directed the disciplinary authority to complete the fresh proceedings within two months - The fresh proceedings was not completed within this stipulated time and an order was passed by the authority later - CAT rejected employee's challenge against this order - Allowing writ petition filed by employee, the High Court held that Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction or authority to complete the proceedings beyond the period prescribed by the Tribunal - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: While treating the proceedings as having abated and as nullity, the High Court has ignored the fundamental principles that fixing of such time period was only a matter of procedure with an expectation of conclusion of the proceedings in an expeditious manner. This period of two months had not acquired any such mandatory statutory character so as to nullify the entire of the disciplinary proceedings with its expiry. Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Orders - Conditional Order - When a conditional order is passed by the Court/Tribunal to do a particular act or thing within a particular period but the order does not provide anything as to the consequence of default, the Court/Tribunal fixing the time for doing a particular thing obviously retains the power to enlarge such time. As a corollary, even the Appellate Court/Tribunal or any higher forum would also be having the power to enlarge such time, if so required. In any case, it cannot be said that the proceedings would come to an end immediately after the expiry of the time fixed. (Para 9.2) Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Patna High Court Rules - Rule 8 of Chapter XII - Appeal against conviction shall be heard for admission unless the accused has surrendered to the order of the Court below convicting him to a sentence of imprisonment except in a case where the appellant has been released on bail by the trial court after convicting him - This Rule applies to the pre-admission stage, not applicable after admission. (Para 7) Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - As the explanation to Section 121A of the IPC discloses, for an offence of conspiracy, it would not be necessary that any act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance thereof. Thus, even though no untoward incident had actually of the IPC, the matter would still come within the four corners of Section 121A of the IPC. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - Conspiracy to wage war against India - The dictionary meaning of the expression "overawe" is to subdue or inhibit with a sense of awe. The expression "overawe" would thus imply creation of apprehension or situation of alarm and as rightly held by the Division Bench (in the case of Mir Hasan Khan v. State (or Ramanand v. State), it would not be necessary that the danger should be one of assassination of or of bodily injury to the members of the machinery or apparatus of the Government but the danger might as well be to public property or to the safety of members of the general public. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of four persons for causing the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru in December, 2005. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 221 - "charge" not defined under Cr.P.C. - a false "charge" in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning - would include a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion - the expression "falsely charges" in this section, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial - "to falsely charge" must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion - the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial - the false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings - in other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made - the statement in order to constitute the "charges" should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. [Para 91, 94] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code 1860; Section 221 - Essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence; the complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person, this complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. [Para 90] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code 1860; Section 376(2)(n) - Offence of committing repeated rape on same woman - The complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship - Now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC - Observations while granting anticipatory bail to accused. Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599

Precedents - A judgment is a precedent for the question of law that is raised and decided. The language used in a judgment cannot be read like a statute. In any case, words and phrases in the judgment cannot be construed in a truncated manner out of context. (Para 84) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Property Law - Co-ownership - The co­owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a sole owner of the property. No co­owner has a definite right, title and interest in any particular item or a portion thereof. On the other hand, he has right, title and interest in every part and parcel of the joint property. He owns several parts of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner in the property. It is observed that, therefore, one co­owner can file a suit and recover the property against strangers and the decree would enure to all the co­owners. (Para 9.4) Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Service Law - Appointment as Management Trainee (Technical), cannot be compared to the education and appointment of a medical doctor. (Para 12) Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Service Law - Caste Certificate - When a person secures appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment. (Para 14) Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The Court is obliged to take judicial notice of the phenomenal rise in the price of real estate - Having paid an insignificant amount the Plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary equitable relief of Specific Performance. (Para 38-39) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The fact that the suit had been filed after three years, just before expiry of the period of limitation, is also a ground to decline the Plaintiff the equitable relief of Specific Performance for purchase of immovable property - The courts will also frown upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for one or two years to file a suit and obtain Specific Performance. The three year period is intended to assist the purchaser in special cases, as for example where the major part of the consideration has been paid to the vendor and possession has been delivered in part performance, where equity shifts in favour of the purchaser. (Para 43) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - Distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract - Both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance - While readiness means the capacity of the Plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the Plaintiff. (Para 34) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - In a suit for Specific Performance of a contract, the Court is required to pose unto itself the following questions, namely:- (i) Whether there is a valid agreement of sale binding on both the vendor and the vendee and (ii) Whether the Plaintiff has all along been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.Even in a first appeal, the first Appellate Court is duty bound to examine whether there was continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff to perform the contract. (Para 33-35) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff a condition precedent for grant of the relief of Specific Performance-It is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances including availability of funds and mere statement or averment in plaint of readiness and willingness, would not suffice -Deposit of amount in court is not enough to arrive at conclusion that Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. (Para 24 - 46) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Words and Phrases - Bail - A bail is nothing but a surety inclusive of a personal bond from the accused. It means the release of an accused person either by the orders of the Court or by the police or by the Investigating Agency. It is a set of pre-trial restrictions imposed on a suspect while enabling any interference in the judicial process. Thus, it is a conditional release on the solemn undertaking by the suspect that he would cooperate both with the investigation and the trial - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. (Para 8-12) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Words and Phrases - May and Shall - Ordinarily the word "may" is directory. The expression 'may admit' confers discretion to admit. In contrast, the use of the word "shall" postulates a mandatory requirement. The use of the word "shall" raises a presumption that a provision is imperative. However, the prima facie presumption about the provision being imperative may be rebutted by other considerations such as the scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from the construction. (Para 64) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Words and Phrases - Trial - An extended meaning has to be given to this word for the purpose of enlargement on bail to include, the stage of investigation and thereafter - Primary considerations would obviously be different between these two stages. In the former stage, an arrest followed by a police custody may be warranted for a thorough investigation, while in the latter what matters substantially is the proceedings before the Court in the form of a trial. If we keep the above distinction in mind, the consequence to be drawn is for a more favourable consideration towards enlargement when investigation is completed, of course, among other factors - An appeal or revision shall also be construed as a facet of trial when it comes to the consideration of bail on suspension of sentence. (Para 7) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608
2. Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578
3. Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600
4. Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582
5. Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599
6. Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607
7. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585
8. Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593
9. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603
10. Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589
11. Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572
12. Col. Vineet Raman Sharda v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 606
13. Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581
14. Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597
15. Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602
16. Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598
17. In Re Perry Kansagra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576
18. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604
19. Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574
20. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590
21. Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579
22. National Highway Authority of India v. Transstroy (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586
23. National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584
24. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashikala J. Ayachi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591
25. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583
26. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592
27. Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605
28. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577
29. Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596
30. State Bank of India v. Dr.Vijay Mallya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575
31. State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
32. State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580
33. Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601
34. U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588
35. Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595
36. Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573
37. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587