Supreme Court Weekly Digest 2022 With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index [August 1 to7]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7 - Principles governing what constitutes an arbitration agreement - Arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of parties to refer disputes to arbitration - mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration. (Para 8-9) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - Summoning an accused person cannot be resorted to as a matter of course and the order must show application of mind. (Para 47) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 205 - There could be no justification for not dispensing with the personal appearance of the accused- directors, when the Company had entered appearance through an authorized officer. (Para 47) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207 - Sec 207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of the rights of the accused as well as to the principles of natural justice - Can't always insist that documents can be shared only after court takes cognizance of the complaint. (Para 56) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - The purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances which have emerged against him during the course of trial. A reasonable opportunity entails putting all the adverse evidences in the form of questions so as to give an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give his explanation- If all the circumstances are bundled together and a single opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may not able to put forth a rational and intelligible explanation. Such, exercises which defeats fair opportunity are nothing but empty formality. Non­ fulfilment of the true spirit of Section 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice to the accused and the Court may not have the benefit of all the necessary facts and circumstances to arrive at a fair conclusion. Such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless the accused fails to prove that grave prejudice has been caused to him -The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. (Para 25-28) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 6) Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 653

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specially laid down in the Section, the Court is duty bound to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when the exercise of such power is justified by the tests laid down in the said Section. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised if the interest of justice so requires. (Para 35) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 141 - The laudable object of preventing bouncing of cheques and sustaining the credibility of commercial transactions, resulting in enactment of Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act has to be borne in mind - A complaint should also not be read with a pedantically hyper technical approach to deny relief under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to those impleaded as accused, who do not have any criminal liability in respect of the offence alleged in the complaint. (Para 39) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - 100% reservation is discriminatory and impermissible -quashes Jharkhand Govt notification providing 100% reservation for local residents in Scheduled Districts for Govt Posts in Class III & Class IV. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India 1950; Article 16(3), 35 - Under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, it is the Parliament alone, which is authorized to make any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State of Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within the State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. As per Article 35 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the Parliament shall have and the Legislature of a State shall not have the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters which, under clause (3) of Article 16 may be provided for law made by Parliament. Therefore, impugned Notification/Order making 100% reservation for the local resident of the concerned Scheduled Area/Districts (reservation on the basis of resident) is ultra vires to Article 35 r/w Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India. (Para 24) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950 - Fifth Schedule - The power of the Governor is pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament and the State. The legislative power can be exercised by the Parliament or the State subject to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Thereafter, it is ultimately observed and held that the power of the Governor does not supersede the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. It has to be exercised subject to Part III and other provisions of the Constitution. (Para 18.4) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950 - Governor's Powers -Schedule 5 cannot be read as conferring upon the Governor absolute power and/or unfettered power, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16(2) - 100% reservation provided for the local residents of the concerned Scheduled Districts / Areas only would be violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and affecting rights of the other candidates / citizens of non­scheduled areas / Districts guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. (Para 20, 23) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Section 313 CrPC confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21. (Para 19) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 279A - GST Council is empowered to make recommendations to the States on any matter relating to GST. (Para 7) Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which can be said to be subordinate legislation and cannot be said to be an Act or the Law made by the Parliament and / or State Legislature is beyond the scope and ambit of Governor's power under para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. (Para 20(3)) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 366 (29A) (d) - Transfer of right to use goods "deemed sale" - principles explained. (Para 52) Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Criminal Trial - Related Witness - A close relative cannot automatically be characterized as an "interested" witness. However, even related witness statements need to be scrutinized more carefully. (Para 10) Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 25, 27, 8 - No part of a First Information Report lodged by an accused with the police as an implicatory statement can be admitted into evidence - However, the statement can be admitted to identify the accused as the maker of the report - Further, that part of the information in the statement, which is distinctly related to the 'fact' discovered in consequence of such information, can also be admitted into evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, provided that the discovery of the fact must be in relation to a material object - The conduct of the accused is relevant and admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. (Para 5) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 129 - Privilege over legal advise - Legal privilege not applicable to legal opinion used by SEBI to initiate prosecution, as such opinion is part of investigation. (Para 53-55) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Fair Trial - The approach of SEBI, in failing to disclose the documents also raises concerns of transparency and fair trial. Opaqueness only propagates prejudice and partiality. Opaqueness is antithetical to transparency. It is of utmost importance that in a country grounded in the Rule of Law, institutions ought to adopt procedures that further the democratic principles of transparency and accountability. Principles of fairness and transparency of adjudicatory proceedings are the cornerstone of the principles of open justice. (Para 46) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Finance Act 1994; Section 65B (44) - Definition of "service" - does not include activities listed as "deemed" sale under Article 366(29A) of Constitution (Para 36) Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Goods and Service Tax - Document Identification Number (DIN) System - Union of India / GST Council to issue advisory / instructions / recommendations to the respective States regarding implementation of the system of electronic (digital) generation of a DIN in the indirect tax administration - States to consider to implement the system for electronic (digital) generation of a DIN for all communications sent by the State Tax Officers to taxpayers and other concerned persons so as to bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration at the earliest - It would be in the larger public interest and enhance good governance. (Para 6-7) Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 14,18 - IBC does not exclude the application of Section 14 or 18 or any other provision of the Limitation Act. (Para 81) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The IBC is not just a statute for recovery of debts. It is also not a statute which only prescribes the modalities of liquidation of a corporate body, unable to pay its debts. It is essentially a statute which works towards the revival of a corporate body, unable to pay its debts, by appointment of a Resolution Professional. (Para 55) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - An application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years, in which case the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years. (Para 97) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - Entries in Books of Account/Balance sheet of a company can be treated as acknowledgement of liability in respect of debt payable to a financial creditor. (Para 85) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - Pleadings - An application under Section 7 in the prescribed form cannot be compared with the plaint in a suit, and cannot be judged by the same standards, as a plaint in a suit, or any other pleadings in a Court of law - There is no scope for elaborate pleadings - Documents filed along with the application, or later, and subsequent affidavits and applications would have to be construed as part of the pleadings. (Para 49,76) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7 - The period of limitation for making an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is three years from the date of accrual of the right to sue, that is, the date of default. (Para 69) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Interpretation of Statutes - If a statute prescribes a method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable. (Para 13) Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - Acknowledgment in writing of liability, signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed - Even if the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, evidence might be given of the time when it was signed - An acknowledgment may be sufficient even though it is accompanied by refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy or is coupled with claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right. 'Signed' is to be construed to mean signed personally or by an authorised agent. (Para 93) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - Impleadment of all Directors of an Accused Company on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act - Specific averments have to be made in the pleadings to substantiate the said statement in the complaint, that such Director was in charge of and responsible for conduct of the business of the Company or the Company - It would be a travesty of justice to drag Directors, who may not even be connected with the issuance of a cheque or dishonour thereof, such as Director (Personnel), Director (Human Resources Development) etc. into criminal proceedings under the NI Act, only because of their designation. (Para 42-46) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - When the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director of a company, it is not necessary to make an averment in the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - Prefix "Managing" to the word "Director" makes it clear that the Director was in charge of and responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company - A Director or an Officer of the company who signed the cheque renders himself liable in case of dishonour. (Para 30, 37) Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 143A - Failure of accused to pay interim compensation - The amount can be recovered as if it were a fine - The provision nowhere contemplates that an accused who had failed to deposit interim compensation could be fastened with any other disability including denial of right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. (Para 12-14) Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652

Penal Code, 1860 - Deceased was addicted to alcohol and used to constantly torment, abuse and threaten the accused (appellant) who was his brother - On the night of the occurrence, the deceased had consumed alcohol and had told the accused to leave the house and if not, he would kill the accused - There was sudden loss of self-control on account of a 'slow burn' reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation - There was temporary loss of self-control as the appellant had tried to kill himself by holding live electrical wires - The acts of provocation on the basis of which the accused caused the death of his brother were both sudden and grave and that there was loss of self-control - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 1 to Section 300 - Act of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual and reasonable. The law attaches great importance to two things when defence of provocation is taken - First, whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his mind. Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given. The retaliation should be proportionate to the provocation. The first part lays emphasis on whether the accused acting as a reasonable man had time to reflect and cool down. The offender is presumed to possess the general power of self-control of an ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the same situation in which the accused is placed, to temporarily lose the power of self-control. The second part emphasises that the offender's reaction to the provocation is to be judged on the basis of whether the provocation was sufficient to bring about a loss of self-control in the fact situation - Here again, the court would have to apply the test of a reasonable person in the circumstances. While examining these questions, we should not be short-sighted, and must take into account the whole of the events, including the events on the day of the fatality, as these are relevant for deciding whether the accused was acting under the cumulative and continuing stress of provocation. (Para 12) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 1 to Section 300 - Sustained provocation principle - The last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control - The cumulative or sustained provocation test would be satisfied when the accused's retaliation was immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort of provocative conduct, which would satisfy the requirement of sudden or immediate provocation - This principle does not do away with the requirement of immediate or the final provocative act, words or gesture. Further, this defence would not be available if there is evidence of reflection or planning as they mirror exercise of calculation and premeditation - The provocation may be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of the injury. The idea behind this exception is to exclude the acts of violence which are premeditated, and not to deny consideration of circumstances such as prior animosity between the deceased and the accused, arising as a result of incidents in the past and subsequently resulting in sudden and grave provocation-Thus, the gravity of the provocation can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse and need not be confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form of acts, words or gestures. (Para 12-14) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Penal Code, 1860; Exceptions to Section 300 - The burden of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be mixed with the burden on the accused of proving that the case falls within an exception. However, to discharge this burden the accused may rely upon the case of the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the court. (Para 15) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Penal Code, 1860; Section 375 and 90 - The parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time - For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage - FIR lodged three years thereafter - Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself Distinction between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649

Precedent - A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided and not observations made in the facts of any particular case. (Para 79) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Principles of natural justice - The duty to act fairly by SEBI, is inextricably tied with the principles of natural justice, wherein a party cannot be condemned without having been given an adequate opportunity to defend itself. (Para 43) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

SEBI - Regulators should act fairly - SEBI is a regulator and has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties. Being a quasi­judicial body, the constitutional mandate of SEBI is to act fairly, in accordance with the rules prescribed by law. The role of a Regulator is to deal with complaints and parties in a fair manner, and not to circumvent the rule of law for getting successful convictions. There is a substantive duty on the Regulators to show fairness, in the form of public co­operation and deference. (Para 42) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

SEBI - Regulators should avoid frivolous criminal actions against large corporations - Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions, should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts ought to act as gate keepers for the same. Initiating frivolous criminal actions against large corporations, would give rise to adverse economic consequences for the country in the long run. Therefore, the Regulator must be cautious in initiating such an action and carefully weigh each factor. (Para 29) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

SEBI - Supreme Court directs Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to disclose to Reliance Industries Ltd the documents relied on by the SEBI to filed a criminal complaint against RIL over alleged irregularities in a share transaction in 1994. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Service Law - There is difference between void and illegal appointments- Void appointments cannot be regularized. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Service Tax - Finance Act 1994 - Held that for the period pre-Finance Act, 2007, service tax was not leviable on the indivisible/composite works contracts. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Service Tax - Finance Act 1994 - The contention of revenue to the effect that even prior to the 2007 amendment being made to the Finance Act, 1994 service tax on works contract was leviable is not correct. It was being levied on purely service contract and not on service element of works contract as there was no definition of a works contract till then. Hence, the amendment made to the Finance Act, 1994 by insertion of the definition of works contract as under clause (zzzza) is not clarificatory in nature. (Para 12) Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Service Tax - License to use software through End User License Agreement a "deemed sale" as per Article 366 (29A) (d) of the Constitution - Service tax not leviable merely because updates are given to the customer. Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Service Tax - Sale of software - whether service tax leviable - Once a lumpsum has been charged for the sale of CD (as in the case on hand) and sale tax has been paid thereon, the revenue thereafter cannot levy service tax on the entire sale consideration once again on the ground that the updates are being provided. We are of the view that the artificial segregation of the transaction, as in the case on hand, into two parts is not tenable in law. It is, in substance, one transaction of sale of software and once it is accepted that the software put in the CD is "goods", then there cannot be any separate service element in the transaction. We are saying so because even otherwise the user is put in possession and full control of the software. It amounts to "deemed sale" which would not attract service tax. (Para 55) Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Service Tax on Work Contracts - The judgment in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra) has been correctly decided and does not call for a reconsideration insofar as the period prior to 1st June, 2007 is concerned. (Para 13) Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Sports Law - National Sports Code 2011 can't be read like a statute' : Supreme Court allows players to vote in AIFF executive committee election. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 661

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking enhancement of retirement age of college teachers in Kerala as 65 years as per UGC recommendation - Affirms Kerala HC view that the fixing of age of superannuation is a policy decision of the state government - Takes note of a circular issued by the Central Government in 2012 which stated that the UGC recommendation regarding enhancement of retirement age has been withdrawn and that the issue is left to the policy decision of the respective state governments. Dr. J. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 655

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - The UGC Regulations have to be consistent with the directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes, as may be given by the Central Government as per Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956. In the case of any dispute between UGC and the Central Government, as to whether a question is a question of policy relating to national purpose, the decision of the Central Government prevails over that of UGC. [Para 8] Dr. J. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 655

NOMINAL INDEX

1. All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 661
2. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648
3. Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 660
4. Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650
5. Dr. J. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 655
6. Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 658
7. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657
8. Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649
9. Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 652
10. Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654
11. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659
12. Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 651
13. Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 653
14. Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 647
15. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656