Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- August 22 - 28, 2022

CBSE is only a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the school affiliated to it is not a creature of the statute and hence not a statutory body - CBSE itself is not a statutory body nor the regulations framed by it has any statutory force. Secondly, the mere fact that the Board grants recognition to the institutions on certain terms and conditions itself does not confer any enforceable right on any person as against the Committee of Management - Thus, where a teacher or non ­teaching staff challenges action of Committee of Management that it has violated the terms of contract or the rules of the Affiliation Byelaws, the appropriate remedy of such teacher or employee is to approach the CBSE or to take such other legal remedy available under law. It is open to the CBSE to take appropriate action against the Committee of Management of the institution for withdrawal of recognition in case it finds that the Committee of Management has not performed its duties in accordance with the Affiliation Byelaws. (Para 28-33) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Law on ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts - The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of a civil nature is expansive and the onus to prove the ouster of the jurisdiction is on the party that asserts it. The court observed that even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by a statute, the test is to determine if the authority or tribunal constituted under the statute has the power to grant reliefs that the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them. (Para 15) Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976; Sections 71, 177 - The reliefs sought in the plaint are: (i) the removal of the unauthorized construction; (ii) a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from constructing over the open site and causing 'nuisance'; and (iii) restoration of the water connection as it was prior to the construction - The reliefs claimed are beyond the scope of the Act - A suit of this nature will be maintainable before the civil court and would not be barred by Section 71 or Section 177 of the Act. (Para 16) Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Sections 96-100 - Any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court - A person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. The sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned. (Para 29-31) My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law - It cannot be said that the civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues. A Court having jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter has the power to decide and may come either to a right or a wrong conclusion. Even if a wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by the jurisdictional court, the same is binding on the parties until it is set aside by an appellate court or through other remedies provided in law - Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews. A party cannot find solace in Section 151 to allege and rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuilt in the CPC. (Para 26-28) My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Averments in the plaint alone are to be examined while considering an application for rejection of plaint - No other extraneous factor can be taken into consideration. H.S. Deekshit v. Metropoli Overseas Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 703

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 196 - Appeal against denial of sanction to prosecute Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in a case alleging making of hate speech in 2007 - Subsequent events have rendered the appeal into a purely academic exercise - Legal questions on the issue of sanction be left open to be considered in an appropriate case. Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 196 - The words "No Court shall take cognizance" employed in Section 196 CrPC and the consequential bar created under the said provision would undoubtedly show that the bar is against 'taking of cognizance by the Court' - It creates no bar against registration of a crime or investigation by the police agency or submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation as contemplated under Section 173, CrPC. (Para 10) Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716

Constitution of India - 10th Schedule - Anti-defection law - Supreme Court refers to Constitution Bench questions relating to Speaker's powers for disqualification proceedings- Questions referred in dispute between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde over rift within Shiv Sena party - Prima facie doubts the law laid down in Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix versus Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Execution of Arbitration awards against NHAI - If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court - We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court. (Para 6-7) National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The terms of employment of contract between a school and non ­teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non ­teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered by the court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition - An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public - While a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. (Para 69) St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Constitutional Courts can test constitutionality of legislative instruments (statute and delegated legislations) - The Courts are empowered to test both on procedure as well as substantive nature of these instruments - The test should be based on a combined reading of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution - doctrine of manifest arbitrariness. (Para 15.7 -15.8) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d)(ii) - Consumer complaint alleging premature encashment of Joint Fixed Deposit by bank in contravention of the terms and conditions is maintainable - A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a 'consumer' under the 1986 Act. As a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act. (Para 19) Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 18 - Confession recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police [Addl. SP] is admissible in evidence - The posts of SP, Addl. SP, and DCP all fall within the same rank as they exercise similar functions and powers and operate within similar spheres of authority. (Para 63) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707

Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(d) - More than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate. (Para 79) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707

Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 23(1)(a) - The order of approval need not name every accused person at the outset- Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA speaks of recording information about the commission of an offence of organized crime, and not of recording information about the offender. The competent authority may record information under Section 23(1)(a) once it is satisfied that an organized crime has been committed by an organized crime syndicate. (Para 72) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707

Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 3(2) - Those accused of abetting the commission of organized crime need not themselves be charged with committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years. They need only be abetting those who are guilty of committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years, which offence amounts to an organized crime. (Para 76) Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707

Election Laws - Freebies Issue - Supreme Court refers to 3-judge bench - Identifies 3 issues - Petitioners prayed for reconsideration of SC judgment in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 9 SCC 659. Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 717

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Banking Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985 - FERA Proceedings initiated against Banks - Show causes notices issued in the year 2002, i.e., after a period of almost one decade from the date of the alleged transactions of 1992-­1993, were not tenable in law - The Banks are required to preserve the record for five years and eight years respectively - Permitting the show cause notices and the proceedings continued thereunder of the transactions which have taken place much prior to eight years would be unfair and unreasonable. Union of India v. Citibank NA, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Forfeiture - Forfeitures can be categorized as civil and criminal. On the civil side, there can be in rem or in personam forfeitures. Punitive forfeitures under the criminal law are in personam. Criminal forfeitures usually take place at the conclusion of a trial, when the guilt of the accused is established. Standards of evidentiary requirement differ greatly between civil and criminal forfeiture - The utility of independent provisions of forfeiture, distinct from criminal prosecution, needs to be utilised in a proportional manner, looking at the gravity of the offence. Few examples which may pass the muster of proportionality for having such stringent civil forfeiture, may relate to crimes involving terrorist activities, drug cartels or organised criminal activities - The application of such a provision to numerous other offences which are not of such grave severity, would be of serious risk of being disproportionate, if procedures independent of criminal prosecution are prescribed. (Para 17.15, 17.28) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Various stages involved in the corporate insolvency process in India discussed. (Para 34) Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14 - Moratorium on the initiation of CIRP proceedings and its effects - One of the purposes of the moratorium is to keep the assets of the Corporate Debtor together during the insolvency resolution process and to facilitate orderly completion of the processes envisaged under the statute. Such measures ensure the curtailing of parallel proceedings and reduce the possibility of conflicting outcomes in the process - one of the motivations of imposing a moratorium is for Section 14(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the IBC to form a shield that protects pecuniary attacks against the Corporate Debtor. This is done in order to provide the Corporate Debtor with breathing space, to allow it to continue as a going concern and rehabilitate itself. (Para 36) Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Sections 14, 33(5) - Customs Act, 1961 - IBC would prevail over Customs Act, to the extent that once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The customs authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act - Once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be, the respondent authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under the Customs Act - After such assessment, the respondent authority has to submit its claims (concerning customs dues/operational debt) in terms of the procedure laid down, in strict compliance of the time periods prescribed under the IBC, before the adjudicating authority - In any case, the IRP/RP/liquidator can immediately secure goods from the respondent authority to be dealt with appropriately, in terms of the IBC. (Para 53) Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Judgments - Accessibility - Judgments to carry paragraph numbers and a table of contents in a longer version - Judgments should be accessible to persons from all sections of society including persons with disability - They should not have improperly placed watermarks and should be signed using digital signatures - They should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens. (Para 20-21) State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710

Judgments - Broad guidelines on judgment writing - While judges may have their own style of judgment writing, they must ensure lucidity in writing across these styles - Incoherent judgments have a serious impact upon the dignity of our institutions - "IRAC‟ method of judgment writing - The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. (Para 10-28) State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710

Legislation - Amendment - Retrospective or Prospective - Ordinarily, the effect of amendment by substitution would be that the earlier provisions would be repealed, and amended provisions would be enacted in place of the earlier provisions from the date of inception of that enactment. However, if the substituted provisions contain any substantive provisions which create new rights, obligations, or take away any vested rights, then such substitution cannot automatically be assumed to have come into force retrospectively. In such cases, the legislature has to expressly provide as to whether such substitution is to be construed retrospectively or not. (Para 54) Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712

Legislation - Legislature has power to enact retroactive/retrospective civil legislations under the Constitution. However, Article 20(1) mandates that no law mandating a punitive provision can be enacted retrospectively. Further, a punitive provision cannot be couched as a civil provision to by­pass the mandate under Article 20(1) of the Constitution which follows the settled legal principle that "what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly". (Para 17.10) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Limitation - When the proceedings are required to be initiated within a particular period provided under the Statute, the same are required to be initiated within the said period. However, where no such period has been provided in the Statute, the authorities are required to initiate the said proceeding within a reasonable period. No doubt that what would be a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 19) Union of India v. Citibank NA, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Limitation Act, 1961; Article 54 - Article 54 of the Limitation Act provides for two consequences based on the presence of fixed time period of performance. It is only in a case where the time period for performance is not fixed that the purchaser can take recourse to the notices issued and the vendors' reply thereto. (Para 37) Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712

Mens Rea - Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence - A statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England – and also accepted in India – to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with common law rather than against it, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. The mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil which by itself is not decisive of the question as to whether the element of a guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only 33 where it is absolutely clear that implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated. (Para 14.10) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - A drawer handing over a cheque signed by him is liable unless it is proved by adducing evidence at the trial that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability. The evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the accused had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over. Therefore, no purpose is served by allowing the application for adducing the evidence of the hand-writing expert - The presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert. Even if the details in the cheque have not been filled up by drawer but by another person, this is not relevant to the defense whether cheque was issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. (Para 4, 17) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is an agreement to commit an offence - Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence- Some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established- It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence. (Para 22-25) Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - An alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment - The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it. (Para 20-23) M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Penal Code, 1860; Section 415, 420 - Firstly, to constitute cheating, a person must deceive another. Secondly, by doing so the former must induce the person so deceived to (i) deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (iii) intentionally induce the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and such an act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Power Purchase Agreement - Supreme Court holds that Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd needs to pay compounded interest to Adani Power limited, on account of "change in law". Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 711

Practice and Procedure - Judge who passed the impugned order had represented one of the opposite parties in certain collateral proceedings related to the subject property - Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done" - In the present circumstances, it may have been more apposite for the concerned Judge to have recused from this case - The appellant should have brought it to the notice of the learned senior Judge at the very first instance, and not at this belated stage. (Para 38-39) My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 8 - Interim possession by authority before conclusion of final trial to exceptional cases - Ratio in Vijay Madanlal Choudary & Ors v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633 requires further expounding in an appropriate case, without which, much scope is left for arbitrary application. (Para 17.27) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; Chapter IV - Characterization of the confiscation proceedings under Chapter IV of the 2016 Act as Civil may therefore not be appropriate. There is an implicit recognition of the forfeiture being a punitive sanction, as the Officer is mandated to build a case against the accused for such confiscation, wherein the presumption of innocence is upheld structurally. (Para 17.31) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; Section 3(2) - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 - Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. (Para 18.1) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; Section 5 - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 - In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary - In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively - Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. (Para 18.1) Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab); Section 13 - Demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises of a landlord. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713

Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab); Section 6 - The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713

Service Law - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - MACP Scheme is applicable with effect from 1.9.2008 and as per the MACP Scheme, the entitlement is to financial upgradation equivalent to the immediate next grade pay in the hierarchy of the pay bands -fulfilment of pre-promotional norms for grant of financial upgradation would not be insisted for Central Armed Force personnel who, for administrative or other reasons, could not be sent or undergo the pre-promotional course. (Para 12) Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 699

Service Law - Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009; Rule 3(3) - A conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to grant the benefit of revision of pension notionally from 01.01.2006 or from the date of superannuation till 31.12.2008 and to pay/grant the benefit of revision of pension actually from 01.01.2009, which was based on their financial crunch/financial constraint - The cut ­off date has been fixed as 01.01.2009 on a very valid ground i.e., financial constraint - High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3(3). State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 10 - 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force. Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16 - In order to prove readiness and willingness, the burden is on the purchaser to prove that they were always ready and it is only the vendor who refused to perform the contract for extraneous consideration - When the purchaser was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated and accordingly, specific performance cannot be granted for the entire contract. (Para 63-69) Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Arun Bhatiya v. HDFC Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 696
2. Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 717
3. H.S. Deekshit v. Metropoli Overseas Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 703
4. Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
5. M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701
6. My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 698
7. National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705
8. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 714
9. Parvez Parwaz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 716
10. Rajani v. Smita, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 702
11. Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709
12. St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708
13. State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 710
14. State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 706
15. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 697
16. Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 715
17. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713
18. Union of India v. Citibank NA, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704
19. Union of India v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 699
20. Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 700
21. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 711
22. Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 707