Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (July 18 - July 24, 2022)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Even if an aspect with regard to 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims may/can be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, it is always advisable and appropriate that in cases of debatable and disputable facts, good reasonably arguable case, the same should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal. (Para 13) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11, 11(6A) - Though the Arbitral Tribunal may have jurisdiction and authority to decide the disputes including the question of jurisdiction and non­arbitrability, the same can also be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application if the facts are very clear and glaring and in view of the specific clauses in the agreement binding between the parties, whether the dispute is non­arbitrable and/or it falls within the excepted clause. Even at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, the Court may prima facie consider even the aspect with regard to 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims. (Para 13) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616

Arbitration and Conciliation Act; 1996; Section 11(6) - There cannot be two arbitration proceedings with respect to the same contract/transaction-in the present case, earlier the dispute was referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator passed an award on whatever the claims were made. Thereafter, a fresh arbitration proceeding was sought to be initiated with respect to some further claims, may be after final bill-The same is rightly refused (by the High Court) to be referred to arbitration in exercise of Section 11(6) of the Act. Tantia Constructions v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 624

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - For res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality - Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit. The reason is that the first suit is not decided on merits - Conditions that must be satisfied to constitute a plea of res judicata laid down. (Para 30-31) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - To succeed and establish a prayer for res judicata, the party taking the said prayer must place on record a copy of the pleadings and the judgments passed, including the appellate judgment which has attained finality. (Para 32) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - When the suit was dismissed for technical reasons, which decision is not an adjudication on merits of the dispute that would operate as res judicata on the merits of the matter. (Para 32) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer - In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. (Para 9) NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 CPC is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - When two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions. (Para 10-11) NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order II Rule 2 - Constructive Res Judicata - The party claiming and raising the plea of constructive res judicata/Order II Rule 2 of the Code must place on record in evidence the pleadings of the previous suit and establish the identity of the cause of actions, which cannot be established in the absence of record of judgment and decree which is pleaded to operate as estoppel. (Para 33) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. (Para 8) Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Appeal against High Court order that granted anticipatory bail on the ground that no recovery was effected from the accused and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused - Allowed -The respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 439, 161 - Bail - Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right of Privacy - Right to be Forgotten - Right of Eraser - SC Registry directed to examine the issue and to work out how the name of both the petitioner and respondent No.1 along with address details can be masked so that they do not appear visible for any search engine. X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 618

Constitution of India; 1950 Article 21 - A woman's right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution. She has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity. [Para 19] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Delegated Legislation - Delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making. A rule cannot rise above the source of power. (Para 12) Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614

Disability Pension - Army - the question of entitlement of soldiers to disability pension cannot be determined on the basis of medical examination conducted 20 years after his discharge. (Para 15) Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 14(b) - the Rule is only attracted when a disease leads to an individual's discharge or death - such disease is ordinarily to be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service, but not always - in any case, the presumption under Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules is rebuttable - if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. [Para 20] Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 14(c) - If a disease were accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service - reason for disability or ailment - reliance would necessarily have to be placed on expert medical opinion based on an in depth study of the cause and nature of an ailment/disability including the symptoms thereof, the conditions of service to which the soldier was exposed and the connection between the cause/aggravation of the ailment/disability and the conditions and/or requirements of service. [Para 23, 25] Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Evidence Act, 1872 - When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence. (Para 13) Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 - "Forest" or "any forest land" - (1) Statutorily recognized forests such as reserved or protected forests to which clause (i) of Section 2 is applicable; (2) The forests as understood in accordance with dictionary sense and (3) Any area recorded as a forest in Government records. (Para 38) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 - The State Government or the competent authority cannot permit use for non-forest activities without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government - The power given to the Central Government under Section 2 must be exercised by adopting scientific and consistent yardsticks for applying the principles of sustainable development. (Para 36-37) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 (ii-iv) - The specific land in respect of which a special order under section 4 of PLPA has been issued will have all the trappings of a forest governed by clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act - Whether the special orders under Section 4 continue to be in force or not, the lands covered by the said notifications will continue to fall in the category of forests covered by Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. (Para 47 - 60) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(i) - State Government cannot exercise the power under Section 27 of the 1927 Forest Act of declaring that a particular land will cease to be a reserved forest unless there is prior approval from the Central Government. (Para 43) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(ii-iv) - Forest - Dictionary meaning - A large or extensive tract of land having a dense growth of trees, thickets, mangroves etc. A small isolated plot of land will not come within the ambit merely because there are some trees or thickets thereon, as opposed to extensive tract of land covered with dense growth of trees and underbrush or plants resembling a forest in profusion or lushness. (Para 40) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(ii-iv) - Government Records - A Government record is a record maintained by its various departments - Only the entries made after following due process can be a part of any Government record. Government records will include land or revenue records and the record of the forest department. (Para 41) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest Act, 1927 - Concept of forest discussed. (Para 26-30) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - NCLT admitted an application for initiating CIRP filed by operational creditor - NCLAT set it aside - Supreme Court dismissed and held: NCLT committed a grave error of law by admitting the application of the Operational Creditor, even though there was a pre-existing dispute as noted by it. SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7-9 - Noticeable differences in the IBC between the procedure of initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor and by an operational creditor -The NCLT is not a debt collection forum. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 8-9 - If the claim is undisputed and the operational debt remains unpaid, CIRP must commence- IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an Operational Creditor. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 8-9 - if the debt is disputed, the application of the Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP must be dismissed - CIRP should be initiated to penalize solvent companies for non-payment of disputed dues claimed by an operational creditor. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Interpretation of Statutes - Environment and Forest Laws - The approach of the court in interpreting the laws relating to forests and the environment discussed (Para 25) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Effect of 2021 amendment - Parliamentary intent to cover unmarried woman too-After 2021 amendment, the word "married woman" has been substituted with "any woman" and "husband" with "partner"-The Parliamentary intent, therefore, is clearly not to confine the beneficial provisions of the MTP Act only to a situation involving a matrimonial relationship. [Para 16 & 18] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Gap in the law exists between MTP Act and MTP Rules -Evidently, there is a gap in the law : while Section 3 travels beyond conventional relationships based on marriage, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules does not envisage a situation involving unmarried women, but recognizes other categories of women such as divorcees, widows, minors, disabled and mentally ill women and survivors of sexual assault or rape. [Para 18] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Supreme Court passes ad-interim order allowing unmarried woman to terminate pregnancy of 24-week term arising out of a consensual relationship - Prima facie observes the case is covered under Section 3(2)(b). X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - There is no basis to deny unmarried women the right to medically terminate the pregnancy, when the same choice is available to other categories of women -Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom-The distinction between a married and unmarried woman does not bear a nexus to the basic purpose and object which is sought to be achieved by Parliament which is conveyed specifically by the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 3 of the Act. [Para 18, 20, 21] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - The expression "reasonable grounds" used in Section 37(1)(b) under NDPS Act would mean credible, plausible grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. (Para 14) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Bail considerations - The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 17-18) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Bail - The admissions made by the accused while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside - Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 16) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - At the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail. (Para 15) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - NCB's appeal against Delhi HC order granting bail to accused - Allowed - Even dehors the confessional statements, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the accused - The observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage - Set aside Bail order. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 4 - NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011; Rule 3 - In view of the proviso to Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 which states that the number of expert members hearing the appeal or application shall be equal to the number of judicial members, mandating that there shall be at least one expert member on the Bench. Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 304 Part II - Conviction of appellants modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II - Considerations relevant for determining a culpable homicide amounting to murder and distinguishing it from the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 17) Ajmal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961; Regulation 173 - Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 12 - Unless the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the entitlement to disability pension does not arise - There has to be a reasonable causal connection between the injuries resulting in disability and the military service. (Para 8-10) Union of India v. Ex Naik Ram Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 611

Pleadings - Decree or direction beyond what was sought cannot be granted - Limits of a court to grant reliefs beyond the prayer and pleadings of the parties discussed. (Para 36) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Practice & Procedure - Party having the right of consideration of appeal does not have any corresponding right to insist for consideration of the appeal by a forum which is no longer in existence. Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi v. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Appeal against HC order that granted bail to POCSO Accused who allegedly raped and murdered his 11 year old daughter - Allowed - Ex facie, the allegations are grave, the punishment is severe and it cannot be said that there are no materials on record at all - Order set aside. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 14 - Powers of Registrar - When a Trust property is transferred without prior sanction of the Registrar under Section 14 and/or without following a fair and transparent process, it can be always said that the Trust property is not being properly managed or administered - The Registrar can refuse sanction only when he is satisfied that the transactions will be prejudicial to the interests of the Public Trust. (Para 43 - 47) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 36 - Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 36 operate in different fields. When sub-Section (1) is applicable to a Public Trust, none of the provisions of the Public Trusts Act is applicable to the Trust. Sub-Section (2) is an independent power of the State Government to issue a notification exempting certain Public Trusts from all or any of the provisions of the Public Trusts Act. (Para 39) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Religious Endowment - Dedication of a property as religious endowment does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances - Extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time, which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes. (Para 20-25) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Trust - A Trust property cannot be alienated unless it is for the benefit of the Trust and/or its beneficiaries. The Trustees are not expected to deal with the Trust property, as if it is their private property. It is the legal obligation of the Trustees to administer the Trust and to give effect to the objects of the Trust. (Para 45) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Trust - SC set aside the direction issued by MP HC for an investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against the trustees of the Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust of Indore over alleged misappropriation of government properties - Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act 1951 will apply to the Khasgi trust and directed the trustees to get the Khasgi Trust registered under the Public Trusts Act by making the necessary application within a period of one month - Registrar under the Public Trusts Act, having jurisdiction over Khasgi Trust, to call for the record of the Trust relating to all the alienations made by the Trustees. Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Section 33 - The authority cannot impose damages and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages. (Para 5) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Section 33 - Wide powers - Chief Wild Life Warden/appropriate authority may even pass an order of closure of the institution, if the institution continues to discharge the effluent in the sanctuary which may affect and/or damage the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary, after following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. (Para 5) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Words and Phrases - Dictionary - A dictionary always contains the meaning of the words as they are understood by people for generations. It contains the meaning of a word which is already legitimized. Lexicographers include a word in the dictionary when it is used by many in the same way. (Para 39) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi v. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 625
2. Ajmal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609]
3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616
4. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610
5. Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623
6. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613
7. Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620
8. NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
9. R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612
10. Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615
11. SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617
12. State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622
13. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626
14. Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614
15. Tantia Constructions v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 624
16. Union of India v. Ex Naik Ram Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 611
17. Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619
18. X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621
19. X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 618