Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- April 11 to 17

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986 - Appeal against Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment setting aside the Full bench judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal - Dismissed - We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on the procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986; Section 26 - Once there is a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman and the third Member/Chairman was required to give his own decision upon such a reference. However, the matter is not required to be referred to the Full Bench. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364

Civil Suit - The rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences i.e., on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day when he initiated the proceedings, therefore, rights of the parties have to be examined as on the said day. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 33 - The Rule clothes the appellate court with an extra ordinary power, which however is a rare jurisdiction. It is to reach justice in the special facts of a case. It is not an ordinary rule to be applied across the board in all the appeals. In fact, the principle is interalia no doubt that even if there is no appeal by any of the parties in the proceedings, an order can be passed in his favour in the appeal carried by the other side. (Para 13) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 374

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - If a complaint was filed within the period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code from the commission of the offence but the cognizance was taken after the expiry of such period, the terminal point for the prescribed period for the purposes of Section 468, was shifted from the date of taking cognizance to the filing of the complaint or initiation of proceedings so that a complaint ought not to be discarded for reasons beyond the control of the complainant or the prosecution. (Para 14) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - In respect of criminal charges, an accused can be tried by a Court of law and not merely on the basis of the report of the Commissioner under the Inquiry Act. Such a report is not conclusive and an independent action has to be taken by the State or by the victims against the Organizers before the competent court of law to prove the criminal offences said to be committed by certain accused. (Para 49) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - The Commission under the Act shall be appointed either by the Executive or by the Legislature but not by the Judiciary in terms of the provisions of Inquiry Act. (Para 46, 50) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The differential treatment for different classes would not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The only requirement would be, as to whether such a classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. (Para 31) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(g) - Right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration. (Para 40-41) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high. (Para 21) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 32, 226 - Infringement of Article 21 may be an individual case such as by the State or its functionaries; or by the Organizers and the State; or by the Organizers themselves have been subject matter of consideration before this Court in a writ petition under Article 32 or before the High Court under Article 226. (Para 22) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006; Regulation 6(2)(h) - Amended Regulation 6(2)(h) has a direct nexus with the object to be achieved, i.e., providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the students - It is made in order to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure. (Para 33, 41) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Dentists Act, 1948 - Appeal against Rajasthan HC judgment which struck down notification amending Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 - Allowed. Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Dentists Act, 1948; Section 10A- It is within the competence of the Council to make Regulations prescribing any other conditions, which are otherwise not found in clauses (a) to (f) of sub­section (7) of Section 10A of the Act. (Para 29-30) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Hawking - Any hawker can be permitted to hawk in the market only as per the hawking policy and not de hors the same - A hawker has no right to insist that he may be permitted to keep his goods and wares at the place where he is hawking overnight. (Para 1). Madan Lal v. NDMC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 373

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Appeal against orders of the Karnataka High Court, which had permitted Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College to admit students for the academic year 2018-2019 in view of the permission granted for the year 2019-2020 - Allowed - The finding that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is totally erroneous. Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Indian Medicine Central Council (Post­Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 - No medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post graduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Prior to such a permission being granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to be followed. (Para 28) Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 - Juvenility Plea of applicant whose murder conviction was affirmed by Supreme Court by dismissing SLP in 2009 - Juvenile Justice Board passed an order holding that, on the date of commission of the offence, his age was 17 years 07 months and 23 days - Applicant has undergone the sentence for 17 years and 03 days - It will be unjust to send the applicant to the Juvenile Justice Board - He shall be forthwith set at liberty provided he is not required to be detained under any other order of the competent Court. Sanjay Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 369

Legal Maxims - Res ipsa loquitor - Res ipsa loquitor is resorted to when an accident is shown to have occurred and the cause of the accident is primarily within the knowledge of the defendant. The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering the damages, if proper inference to be drawn from the circumstances which are known is that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant. (Para 53) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Mediation - All States are mandated to set up the mediation cells - A direction is made for the e-filing system to be made operational. In Re: Inaction Of The Governments In Appointing President And Members/staff Of Districts And State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And Inadequate Infrastructure Across India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Mediation - Mediation is an important, if not at times a better method of resolution of disputes. In Re: Inaction Of The Governments In Appointing President And Members/staff Of Districts And State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And Inadequate Infrastructure Across India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Meerut Fire Tragedy (2006) - 40:60 Liability On State & Organizers To Compensate Victims - Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to nominate within two weeks a District Judge or Additional District Judge to work on a day to day basis for determining the compensation payable to the families of the victims of the fire that broke out during a consumer fair in Meerut in 2006 - Computation of compensation in accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Penal Code, 1860; Section 366 - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant accused of abducting/kidnapping a girl - Allowed - The abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will - No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Penal Code, 1860; Section 366 - Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the accused and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married the accused on her own free will without any influence being exercised by the accused. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Appeal against the Madras HC judgment which quashed proceedings under Domestic Violence Act on the ground of limitation - Allowed - High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence. Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12 - The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued - The dictum in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act. (Para 22) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12, 31 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - If there be any offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code will apply from the date of commission of such offence. By the time an application is preferred under Section 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Act. Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act. (Para 15) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12, 31 - Filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act cannot be equated to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. (Para 20) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 ) - Constitutional validity upheld - Land for common purposes can be classified in three categories - Part of agrarian reforms and is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The Amending Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes - Only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment as the land stood vested in the panchayat - The Amending Act having been enacted after the assent of the President, is protected in terms of Article 31A of the Constitution - The entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut had to be utilised by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors. State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Rent Control Act, 2001 (Rajasthan) - A suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable- The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit. (Para 28) Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Rent Control Act, 2001 (Rajasthan) - Appeal against Rajasthan HC judgment which upheld decree passed by a Civil Court in a suit for possession filed by landlord- Dismissed - The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Service Law - A non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services - Employer would not be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. Where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the Court to interfere - The cases of non-disclosure of material information and of submitting false information have been treated as being of equal gravity. Union of India v. Dillip Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Service Law - Appeal against Orissa High Court direction to impose 'any lesser punishment' to employee terminated from service for non-disclosure of criminal cases - Allowed - In a case of the present nature where a criminal case was indeed pending against the respondent and the facts were altogether omitted from being mentioned, the employer would be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. Union of India v. Dillip Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell - Once the execution of agreement to sell and the payment of advance substantial sale consideration is admitted by the vendor, nothing further is required to be proved by the vendee. (Para 5.2) P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Subordinate Legislation - Grounds of challenge - Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. Though it may also be questioned on the ground of unreasonableness, such unreasonableness should not be in the sense of not being reasonable, but should be in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary (Para 22 -26) - The presumption is always with regard to the validity of a provision. The burden is on the party who challenges the validity of such provision (Para 30) - It is not permissible for the Court to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation ­making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. (Para 36-39) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - Appeal against Rajasthan HC order denying bail to UAPA accused- under trial - Allowed - In the nature of the case against the appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail. Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 11) Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Waqf Act, 1995 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which set aside the notification which cancelled appointment of one Shaikh Mahemud as a Member of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs - Allowed - The findings of the High Court (i) that the term of office of a Member of the Board stipulated under Section 15 of the Waqf Act cannot be curtailed except in the case of disqualification under Section 16 or removal under Section 20; and (ii) that the cancellation 4 of appointment was arbitrary, are incapable of being upheld. State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 14 - The power to appoint would include the power of cancellation of appointment. (Para 14-15) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 14,15 - Nomination always stands on a slightly different footing than election - It may not be possible for the State Government to breach the process of election from each of the electoral colleges by curtailing the term of office of such elected members. But the same logic cannot be extended to nominated members. (Para 10-12) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 20 - The procedure prescribed under Section 20 has no application in a case where the appointment was cancelled by the notification. (Para 16) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Nominal Index

1. Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365
2. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364
3. Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366
4. Eastern Coalfields v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 374
5. In Re: Inaction of the Government In Appointing President, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371
6. Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372
7. Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370
8. Madan Lal v. NDMC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 373
9. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362
10. P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 375
11. Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368
12. Sanjay Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 369
13. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367
14. State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361
15. State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363
16. Union of India v. Dillip Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360