Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index [October 10 –16, 2022]

Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Court directed the state of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by Tata Motors with respect to the sale of buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) -transaction in question, namely, sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, the sale/s is/are found to be in the nature of inter-state sale/s. In that view of the matter, the appellant – Tata Motors Limited was liable to pay central sales tax to the State of Jharkhand. However, treating the sale as stock transfer, the appellant/its representative had paid the tax on the aforesaid transaction to the State of Andhra Pradesh which is not leviable by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the amount of central sales tax recovered by the State of Andhra Pradesh is required to be transferred to the State of Jharkhand and the same is required to be adjusted towards the amount of tax to be paid to the State of Jharkhand. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847

Central Sales Tax Act 1956 - Prior to insertion of Section 22(1B) to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there was no provision by which the Appellate Authority could have issued directions for refund of the tax collected by the State which has been held by the Appellate Authority to be not due to that State, or alternatively, direct that State to transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central sales tax is due on the same transaction. However, by the Finance Act, 2010, Section 22(1B) has been inserted to Act 1956 providing for refund-in line with Section 22(1B) of the Act 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to transfer to the State of Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by the appellant with the State of Andhra Pradesh with respect to transaction in question. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A CPC - Counter-claim in question could not have been removed out of consideration merely because it was presented after a long time since after filing of the written statement - No bar for taking the belatedly filed counter-claim on record, which was indeed filed before framing of issues. (Para 13-14) Mahesh Govindji Trivedi v. Bakul Maganlal Vyas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 836

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2 - Where there are more than one plaintiffs, the entire suit cannot be held to be abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs. (Para 8-9) Siravarapu Appa Rao v. Dokala Appa Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 845

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8), 156(3), 190(1)(c) - Where the Magistrate is of the opinion that the result of investigation in the form of report filed before him is not satisfactory, he may also order investigation in terms of Sections 156(3) and/or 173(8) CrPC or he may straightway take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) CrPC. (Para 11.2) Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 835

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1), 204 - Taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) of the Cr.P.C. and issue of process under Section 204 are judicial functions and require a judicious approach. This is a proposition not only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice, as a person against whom no offence is disclosed cannot be put to any harassment by the issue of process. Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial mind to the material before the court to determine if there is ground for proceedings against the accused. When the allegations made in the complaint are found to be too vague and general without giving any material particulars of the offence alleged against the accused then the order of the Magistrate issuing process on the basis of the complaint would not be justified as there must be material prima facie, for issuance of process. We have our own doubts whether even the verification of the original complainant on oath was recorded before taking cognizance and issuing process. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reason. (Para 28 -30) Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 482 and 173(8) - In an appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation - The provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice - The question of opportunity of hearing in such matters would always depend upon the given set of facts and circumstances of the case - While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further investigation or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted. (Para 13, 18) Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 835

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Quo Warranto - The writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law. (Para 28) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - False Explanation - Before a false explanation can be used as an additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (i) Various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (ii) Such circumstances points to the guilt of the accused as reasonable defence. (iii) The circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation - If the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled only then a Court use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend as assurance to the Court and not otherwise - Prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. (Para 96-98) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance - Motive for commission of offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of offence is available - Failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. - Absence of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused. (Para 87) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Non ­explanation of the injuries - Any non ­explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non­ explanation may assume greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. (Para 115) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles to be followed - 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (Para 46) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Early conclusion of the trial would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery system. The trial must come to its logical end at the earliest. Gali Janardhan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 829

Criminal Trial - Extra judicial confession - A weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance like the case in hand. The Courts generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession. (Para 85) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 34 - Merely reproducing the words of the section without a clear statement of fact as to how and in what manner a director of the company was responsible for the conduct of 20 the business of the company, would not ipso facto make the director vicariously liable. (Para 18) Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of 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 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 64-68) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - How the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 - If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. (Para 53) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. (Para 74) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Hijab Ban Case - Appeals against Karnataka High Court judgment which upheld Hijab Ban in some schools/pre-university colleges - In view of the divergent views expressed by the Bench, the matter placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench. Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 842

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 36(1)(va), 43B - The non-obstante clause under Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction - There is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts viz. the employers' contribution and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer - the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. (Para 53-54) Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 838

Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 66A - No one should be prosecuted under Section 66A of the Act, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court in 2015 in the Shreya Singhal Case. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 846

Interpretation of Statutes - A government cannot misuse the "removal of difficulty clause" to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation - Where there is a specific provision, it is not open to the State government to conjure up a lacunae or omission and purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties. (Para 48- 49) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Interpretation of Statutes - A statute must be read to avoid a construction which would make certain provisions or terms meaningless or redundant. (Para 41) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Interpretation of Statutes - Purposive Construction - A statute has to be construed according to the intent that makes it and it is always the duty of the Court to act upon the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, it is always desirable of the Court to choose the interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. (Para 43-46) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. National Stock Exchange Members Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 840

Legal Aid - What is meant by the duty of the State to ensure a fair defence to an accused is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake. It has to be the provision of a counsel who defends the accused diligently to the best of his abilities - The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent - In Sessions trials, more particularly relating to serious offences involving severe sentences, appoint experienced lawyers who had conducted such cases in the past. It is desirable that in such cases senior advocate practising in the trial court shall be requested to conduct the case himself or herself on behalf of the undefended accused or at least provide good guidance to the advocate who is appointed as amicus curiae or an advocate from the legal aid panel to defend the case of the accused persons. (Para 117-126) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation Claims - There is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount. (Para 14) Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 841

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation - If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque - When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted. (Para 30) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Though a post- dated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing, for the offence to be attracted, the cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. If there has been a material change in the circumstance such that the sum in the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of maturity or encashment, then the offence under Section 138 is not made out. (Para 16) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 56 - When a part- payment of the debt is made after the cheque was drawn but before the cheque is encashed, such payment must be endorsed on the cheque under Section 56 of the Act. The cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part payment. If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence under Section 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. (Para 29) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Penal Code, 1860; Section 294 - Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others - The test of obscenity under Section 294(b) is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302 - Murder case - Trial Court convicted accused for alleged murder of his wife, four children and sentenced him to death - Allahabad High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed death sentence - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused - None of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the courts below, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, dramatically affecting the lives of families, friends and communities. However, the court of law while adjudicating is not to be guided by emotions of sentiments but the dictum is required to be based on analysis of facts and evidence on record. (Para 32) Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. (Para 36-38) Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834

Penal Code, 1860; Section 341 - Wrongful restraint - It has to be proved that there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Practice and Procedure - Appeal against Gujarat HC order in a dispute between Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZL) and Central Warehousing Corporation - Allowed - When an issue involved the balancing of interests of a statutory Corporation and a private company, the approach of the High Court ought to have been a balanced one. The High Court ought to have taken into consideration that, unless all the three conditions were complied with, the interest of the appellant-CWC, which is a statutory Corporation, could not have been safeguarded. If a settlement was to be arrived at, unless the same was found to be in the interest of both the parties, it could not have been thrust upon a statutory Corporation to its detriment and to the advantage of a private entity. Central Warehouse Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZL), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Practice and Procedure - It does not augur well for the Union of India to speak in two contradictory voices. The two departments of the Union of India cannot be permitted to take stands which are diagonally opposite - Union of India to evolve a mechanism to ensure that whenever such conflicting stands are taken by different departments, they should be resolved at the governmental level itself. (Para 52-53) Central Warehouse Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZL), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason. The competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act - Upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court and seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears. (Para 37-38) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC is only advisory. It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority. The final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of independent mind - There is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant. (Para 18) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Jammu and Kashmir - State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 - The provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable with respect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990. (Para 5.2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nisar Ahmed Ganai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 837

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 12(1) - Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 - Stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1992 in reference to each certificate of registration from SEBI in terms of the computation prescribed under Circular dated 28th March, 2002 and fee is to be paid as a guiding principle by the stock broker which is in conformity with the scheme of Regulations 1992 - After the expiry of five financial years from the date of initial registration, in reference to the stock exchange, the fee has to be deposited for the purpose of sixth financial year to keep his registration in force. (Para 47-48) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. National Stock Exchange Members Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 840

University Act, 1979 (Calcutta); Section 8 - Upheld Calcutta High Court order that set aside the decision of the State to re-appoint Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University - The State government could not have issued the order re-appointing the VC - The power of appointment including of reappointment is entrusted to the Chancellor and not to the State government. The amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a) cannot therefore be construed to mean that the power of reappointment has been taken away from the Chancellor and entrusted to the State government - Amended Section 8(2)(a) which provides for the re-appointment of a VC for another term does not require that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) has to be followed for re-appointment. (Para 29-57) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 - Vice Chancellor Appointment - Even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. (Para 56) State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 842
2. Bharat P etroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nisar Ahmed Ganai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 837
3. Central Warehouse Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZL), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 839
4. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 838
5. Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830
6. Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 835
7. Gali Janardhan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 829
8. Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833
9. Mahesh Govindji Trivedi v. Bakul Maganlal Vyas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 836
10. Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834
11. Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 841
12. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844
13. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 846
14. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843
15. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. National Stock Exchange Members Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 840
16. Siravarapu Appa Rao v. Dokala Appa Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 845
17. State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831
18. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847
19. Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832