SUBJECT WISE INDEX

AYSUH MISSION

Operating Guidelines of the National AYSUH Mission - Paragraph 4(vi)(b) - Order for the purchase of Ayurvedic medicines issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh in favour of Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (IMPCL) - Inviting tenders from the entities is the most transparent and non-arbitrary method of allocation that can be undertaken - The State must henceforth purchase Ayurvedic medicines only through a free and transparent procedure such as tenders. The State may deviate from this rule and procure medicines by nomination only if exceptional circumstances exist. In such a situation, the State must demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances on the basis of cogent material. (Para 31) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

COMPANY LAW

Section 59 Companies Act 2013 - NCLT cannot excercise parallel jurisdiction with SEBI for addressing violations of SEBI Regulations. IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The Constitution does not prohibit appointment of lawyer practising in the Supreme Court as Judge of High Courts. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on right to free speech. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Article 19 & 21 rights can be enforced against private individuals & entities: Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

No one can be penalised for holding an opinion not in confirmity with constitutional values. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Minister's speech a 'constitutional tort' if it leads to acts of officers harming persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

The Prime Minister / Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over other ministers. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Ministers' Statements in official capacity cannot be vicariously attributed to Govt: Supreme Court; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

CONTRACT LAW

Awarding Govt. contracts through public tenders preferable; Departure from tender route must be reasonable. Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Government Contracts - Government action must be just, fair and reasonable and in accordance with the principles of Article 14; and (ii) While government can deviate from the route of tenders or public auctions for the grant of contracts, the deviation must not be discriminatory or arbitrary. The deviation from the tender route has to be justified and such a justification must comply with the requirements of Article 14 - Government contracts involve expenditure out of the public exchequer. Since they involve payment out of the public exchequer, the moneys expended must not be spent arbitrarily. The State does not have absolute discretion while spending public money. (Para 21-22) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Tenders - The process of inviting tenders ensures a level playing field for competing entities. While there may be situations which warrant a departure from the precept of inviting tenders or conducting public auctions, the departure must not be unreasonable or discriminatory. (Para 16) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

CRIMINAL LAW

"Private civil dispute converted to criminal proceedings": Supreme Court quashes complaint alleging offence under SC-ST (prevention of Atrocities) Act. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Magistrate Must Examine If Complaint Constitutes Only A Civil Wrong Before Summoning Accused. Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

"Burden to prove mental incapacity is on the defence": Supreme Court upholds conviction of man accused of killing his two sons. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

DEMONETISATION

'Any' means 'All' : Supreme Court says Centre can demonetise all series of bank notes invoking Section 26(2) of RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Central Government proposes demonetisation - it must seek the opinion of the Central Board of RBI as RBI is the sole authority to regulate circulation of bank notes and secure monetary stability and generally operate the currency and credit system of the country and to maintain price stability - opinion of the Central Board ought to be an independent and frank opinion - the Central Government can move ahead with demonetisation irrespective of positive or negative opinion of the Central Board, but by enacting a legislation or by way of an Ordinance and not an executive notification. [Para 21] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Demonetisation is not illegal merely because the proposal originated from the central govt; no breach of Sec 26(2) RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Demonetisation is not invalid merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Demonetisation decision making process valid, Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Discussion in parliament on demonetisation would have given it legitimacy: Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Objective of demonetisation - the Court does not have the expertise to go into the question whether the object with which demonetisation was effected is served or not - mere errors of Government are nor subject to judicial review, only palpably arbitrary ones are declared void. [Para 247 - 252] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Period for Exchange of notes - 52 days’ period was not unreasonable - if the time for such exchange are not limited, the high denomination bank notes could be circulated and transferred without the knowledge of the authorities concerned, from one person to another and such transferee would have demand exchange of their notes on any subsequent day - thus, the very purpose of demonetisation would be defeated. [Para 286 - 288] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

RBI has no independent power to accept demonetised notes beyond the period specified in centre's notification. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

RBI didn't independently apply its mind in recommending demonetisation, Entire exercise carried out in 24 hours : Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Supreme Court by 4:1 majority holds that the decision-making process behind the demonetisation of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 currency notes in 2016 was lawful - Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian in majority - Justice BV Nagarathna in minority. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Whether demonetisation achieved its objectives is not relevant to decide its legality. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

HATE SPEECH

Hate speech strikes at foundational values of the Constitution; Political parties must control speeches of members: Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (IBC)

Sabka Vishwas Scheme: Supreme Court grants relief to company which missed deadline due to IBC moratorium. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Delay in filing CIRP application condonable on sufficient reasons. Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

If the legislature confers the later enactment with a non-obstante clause, it means the legislature wanted the subsequent / later enactment to prevail. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

LIMITATION

Section 5 Limitation Act - 'Suffficient Cause' is the cause for which a party could not be blamed. Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

PENAL LAW

The Parole period can't be included in the period of actual imprisonment. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10

Parole Period - For the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded-If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get the parole for number of times as there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10

REGULATORY BODIES

Governance of certain sectors through independent regulatory bodies will be far more effective than being under the direct control and supervision of Ministries or Departments of the Government. Regulatory control by an independent body composed of domain experts enables a consistent, transparent, independent, proportionate, and accountable administration and development of the sector. All this is achieved by way of legislative enactments which establish independent regulatory bodies with specified powers and functions. They exercise powers and functions, which have a combination of legislative, executive, and judicial features. (Para 27) IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8

SARFAESI

Burden is on borrower to prove that secured properties are agricultural lands. K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 13

MSMED Act 'dues' will not prevail over SARFAESI Proceedings. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Borrower has to pre-deposit 50% of which amount in appeal before drat u/s 18 SARFAESI Act? The Supreme Court explains. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11

TAXATION LAWS

Income Tax Act | Writ Petition can be entertained to examine if conditions to issue Section 148 notice are satisfied. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Non-banking finance & leasing companies not liable to pay interest tax on instalments paid under hire purchase agreement. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7

TEST OF PROPORTIONALITY

a) it is designated for a proper purpose; b) the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment of that purpose; c) measures undertaken are necessary, there are no alternative measures; and d) there needs to be a proper relation between importance of achieving the purpose and the social importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right - the purpose of demonetisation was elimination of fake currency; black money and terror financing, which is a proper purpose - there is a reasonable nexus between the measure of demonetisation with the purpose of addressing issues of fake currency bank notes, black money, drug trafficking and terror financing - court does not possess the expertise to decide what alternative measure could have been undertaken - there is a proper relation between importance of curbing the menace of fake currency, black money, drug trafficking and terror financing and demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes - even if there was reasonable restriction, it was in the larger public interest. [Para 266 - 276, 279 - 281] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

WORDS AND PHRASES

Largesse - Government actions aimed at ensuring the well-being of citizens cannot be perceived through the lens of a ‘largess’. The use of such terminology belittles the sanctity of the social contract that the ‘people of India’ entered into with the State to protect and safeguard their interests - Terming all actions of government, ranging from social security benefits, jobs, occupational licenses, contracts and use of public resources – as government largesse results in doctrinal misconceptions. The reason is that this conflates the State’s power with duty. (Para 11) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

ACT WISE INDEX

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202, 204 - While summoning an accused who resides outside the jurisdiction of court, it is obligatory upon the Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation be made by a police officer or such other officer for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (Para 22) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - Summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. When the violation of law alleged is clearly debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning without appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of prosecution and summoning of the accused to stand trial, apart from monetary loss, sacrifice of time, and effort to prepare a defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in the society. It results in anxiety of uncertain times. (Para 21) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Companies Act, 2013; Section 59 - Rectificatory jurisdiction of NCLT - Summary in nature and not intended to be exercised where there are contested facts and disputed questions - Transactions falling within the jurisdiction of Regulatory bodies created under a statute must necessarily be subjected to their exante scrutiny, enquiry and adjudication - NCLT under Section 59 cannot excercise a parallel jurisdiction with SEBI for addressing violations of SEBI Regulations. (Para 1, 18) IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Constitution of India, 1950 - Constitutional Tort - A mere statement made by a minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen of Part III of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable as a constitutional tort. But, if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person or citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort. [Justice Nagarathna dissents] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950 - the Constitution does not prohibit lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court - in fact, the Supreme Court has given imprimatur to the principle that in suitable cases Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court can be considered for appointment to the High Court. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950 - Whether Minister’s statement can be vicariously attributed to government - A statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protection of the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility- Justice Nagarathna dissents to hold that statements in official capacity reflecting views of the govt can be vicariously attributed to the govt. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a) - The grounds lined up in Article 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive. Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing claim against each other, additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) - Constitution Bench judgment- Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna unanimous. [Para 155, Majority judgment] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 – The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a person under Article 21 even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217 - Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court - Method of recommendation envisages that Collegium of the High Court consisting Chief Justice and two senior most judges recommends names; Government provides inputs; IB report is obtained; Supreme Court Collegium of three senior most judges takes a call. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - the Supreme Court refused to accept the interpretation that a person who may have been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice in the Supreme Court is ineligible to be appointed as High Court judges - because at the end of the day every lawyer is enrolled with the Bar Council of a particular State. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - In view of alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal before the DRAT, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226/227 allowing the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 6) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Assuming holding notes is a right under the Constitution, the rights vested in the notes was not taken away - only restrictions were with respect to exchange of old notes with the new notes. [Para 277 - 278] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 19 & 21 - Horizontal Application - A fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the state or its instrumentalities - Justice BV Nagarathna dissents to say only habeas corpus remedy can be horizontally applied against private persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - deals with currency, coinage and legal tender; foreign exchange which is a field of legislation - Central Government has the power to initiate the process of demonetisation on the strength of Entry 36 - apart from financial health of the country Central Government is also concerned about the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country - if it thinks fit to initiate a proposal for demonetisation to eradicate black money, fake currency, terror funding etc, it should be able to do so. [Para 15.7, 15.8 and 15.9] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - power of Central Government to demonetise banknotes - Central Government has the power to demonetise ‘all’ series of bank notes of ‘all’ denominations, even without the recommendation of Central Board; but not in exercise of Section 26(2) - such an extensive power is to be exercised only through a legislative process [legislation/Ordinance (if urgent)] and not by way of an executive act - the Parliament should be involved in the process of implementation of such a scheme of demonetisation. [Para 15.13, 15.4 and 15.22] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Criminal Trial - Motive - If motive is proved, that would supply another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case, though such an absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. (Para 15, 17.1) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the accused in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred. (Para 16.4.1) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 148 and 148A - Writ petition can be entertained to examine if conditions for issuance of notice under Section 148 have been satisfied. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2021 - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - A company could not avail benefit of the Sabka Vishwas scheme as it was under moratorium under IBC - The Courts are meant to do justice and cannot compel a person to do something which was impossible for him to do - Directed that the payment of amount already deposited by the company be appropriated towards settlement dues under “Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019 and the company be issued discharge certificate. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 and Article 137 - The limitation period for initiating CIRP under Section 9, IBC is to be reckoned from the date of default, as opposed to the date of commencement of IBC and the period prescribed therefor, is three years as provided by Article 137 - The same would commence from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 Limitation Act - it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim for condonation of the delay when once the proceeding concerned is found filed beyond the period of limitation. (Para 23-24) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Pre-Existing Dispute - What is to be looked into is the existence or otherwise of a dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceedings prior to the receipt of demand notice or invoice, as the case may be. (Para 34-38) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Interest Tax Act, 1974 - Non-banking finance and leasing companies are not liable to pay tax on the interest component included in the hire-purchase instalment paid under the hire purchase agreement. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 - 'Sufficient cause’ is the only criterion for condoning delay. ‘Sufficient Cause’ is the cause for which a party could not be blamed. (Para 25) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302, 211 - Accused allegedly took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to Haiderpur Canal, and strangulated them. Thereafter, he threw the dead bodies into the canal; and attempted to project as if it were a case of accidental drowning - Concurrent conviction under Sections 302, 211 IPC upheld by the Apex Court. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405, 406 - A mere dispute on monetary demand does not attract the offence of criminal breach of trust - Mere wrong demand or claim would not meet the conditions specified by Section 405 of the IPC in the absence of evidence to establish entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal, which action should be in violation of any direction of law, or legal contract touching the discharge of trust. (Para 15) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Penal Code, 1860; Section 415, 420 - The sine qua non of Section 415 of the IPC is “fraudulence”, “dishonesty”, or “intentional inducement”, and the absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating - For the offence of cheating, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should also have dishonestly adduced the person deceived to deliver any property to a person; or to make, alter, or destroy, wholly or in part, a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. (Para 17) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Penal Code, 1860; Section 464, 470 471 - The condition precedent of an offence under Section 471 of the IPC is forgery by making a false document or false electronic record or part thereof - A person is said to have made a ‘false document’: (i) if he has made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; (ii) if he has altered or tampered a document; or (iii) if he has obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. Unless, the document is false and forged in terms of Sections 464 and 470 of the IPC respectively, the requirement of Section 471 of the IPC would not be met. (Para 18) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105 - The burden of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies on the accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act; and where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence, as duly exemplified by illustration (a) to the said Section 105 of the Evidence Act - The mandate of law is that the Court shall presume absence of the circumstances so as to take the case within any of the General Exceptions in IPC. (Para 21) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 26(2) - The decision taken by the Central Government to demonetise is to be based on the recommendation of the Central Board of RBI - RBI is the sole repository of power for the management of currency; it plays a pivotal role in management and issuance of currency notes; dealing with the management and regulation of currency; and in evolving the monetary policy - provision of recommendation by Central Board of RBI acts as a safeguard. [Para 202 - 206] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Central Government may take recourse to the power to demonetise taking into consideration several factors - these factors must have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. [Para 151] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - does not provide for excessive delegation as there is a safeguard that the power can be used only upon recommendation of RBI - though legislature cannot give up its power in favour of another, in view of the multifarious activities of a welfare State, it cannot work out all the details, thus making it necessarily to delegate the same to the executive - Parliament and State Legislatures may not have specialised knowledge - technical and situational intricacies are better left to expert executive bodies and specialist public servants - mere possibility or eventuality of abuse of delegated powers in the absence of any evidence supporting such claim cannot be a ground to strike down a provision - it can be struck down only if it satisfies the ‘policy and guideline’ test. [Para 186, 188, 190, 193] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Essential Ingredients - i) on recommendation of the Central Board of RBI - ii) the Central Government by notification in the Gazette of India; iii) may declare any series of bank notes of any denomination to cease to be legal tender; iv) with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification; v) to such extent as may be specified in the notification. [Para 15.6] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - if demonetisation of any bank note takes place under the provision of the Act, it is only by issuance of a notification in the Gazette of India and not by any other method - only the Central Board of RBI is the initiator of the process of demonetisation - the provision has a restricted operation, either the Central Government accepts the recommendation of the Central Board and issue a gazette notification, or refuse to accept the recommendation [Para 15.17, 15.18 and 15.25] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - on earlier two occasions, when RBI was not in favour of demonetisation, the Government resorted to promulgation of ordinances to demonetise currency notes - merely because on two earlier occasions the Central Government had enacted law to demonetise, does not mean the the word “any'' can be given a restrictive meaning - “any” would mean “all”. [Para 152 - 158] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - on recommendation of Central Board of RBI, Central Government may declare “any” series of bank notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender with effect from a specific date - the word “any” must be interpreted as “all”, otherwise it would lead to an anomaly - e.g. if there are 20 series of a particular denomination, the Centre cannot demonetise 19 series and leave behind one series to continue as legal tender - an interpretation which nullifies the purpose for which power is bestowed would be contrary to the principle of purposive interpretation. [Para 144 - 150] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Scheme of the Act envisages that the issuance of bank notes, various denomination of bank notes, design and form of bank notes are to be specified by the Central Government ‘only’ on recommendation of the Central Board. [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - the decision-making process is not flawed in law - the duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality - it ought to determine whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would reach or abused its powers - it is not concerned with the manner in which the decision was taken. [Para 215, 226] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - two requirements of the provision a) recommendation by the Central Board and b) decision of the Central Government - dictionary meaning of “recommend” is “to advise as to a course of action” or “to praise or command” - the word recommendation ought to be construed in the context in which it is used - in the present context “recommendation” would mean a consultative process between the Central Board and the Central Government - it is to be considered by the Court whether each of the party had disclosed all relevant facts and factors to each other for due consideration. [Para 239 - 245] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - when Central Board recommends demonetisation it is only a particular series of bank notes of a particular denomination as recommend under Section 26(2) - the word ‘any’ cannot be read as ‘all’ - if ‘any’ is to be read as ‘all’, it would provided unguided discretion to the Central Board. [Para 15.13] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings - Initiation of the criminal proceedings therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court - Complaint and summoning order quashed. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2), 13(4), 18 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993; Section 2(g) - Whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the ‘debt due’ within the meaning of proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets, the amount mentioned in the sale certificate will have to be considered while determining the amount of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In a case where both are under challenge, namely, steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets and also the auction sale of the secured assets, in that case, the “debt due” shall mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person, whichever is higher -The borrower can take the benefit of the amount received by the creditor in an auction sale only if he unequivocally accepts the sale. In a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest. (Para 13-16) Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 26E - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Sections 15 - 23 - 'Priority’ conferred / provided under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14, 17 - Neither District Magistrate nor Metropolitan Magistrate would have any jurisdiction to adjudicate and/or decide the dispute even between the secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4) / order passed under Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal / application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 10) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 31(i) - When it was the case on behalf of the borrowers that in view of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the properties were agricultural lands, the same were being exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on. (Para 7-8) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 - the purpose of the Act was to extinguish the liabilities of the SBNs which have ceased to be legal tender with effect from 09.11.2016 - Section 4 is a complete code in itself - Section 4(1) empowers the Central Government to provide grace period - under Section 4(2), RBI is required to satisfy whether a person seeking to take benefit of grace period is entitled after satisfying that the reasons for the delay are genuine - Section 4(2) cannot be read independently - if the Central Government finds that there exists any class of persons to whom benefit under Section 4 is to be extended it has the discretion to do so - RBI does not have independent power under Section 4(2) to accept the demonetised notes beyond the period specified in the notification. [Para 299, 302 - 303] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5
2. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14
3. Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
4. IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8
5. Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6
6. K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 13
7. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4
8. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 12
9. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7
10. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2
11. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16
12. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10
13. Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9
14. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15
15. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11
16. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1