The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XX]

Tamil Learning Act, 2006

Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006 - The State had issued circulars mandating the study of Tamil as a primary subject while allowing linguistic minorities the option to study their mother tongue. Held, the state's circulars should be executed in their entirety. Therefore, similar to other subjects, minimum qualifying marks should be stipulated for the mother tongue and reflected in students' mark sheets. Linguistic Minorities Forum of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Teacher

Physical training instructor a 'teacher' though not conducting classes within four walls. P.C. Modi v. Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1054

The Supreme Court allows teachers to file representation before the centre against selection criteria for national award for teachers. Girisha Chandra Mishra v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 541

Telecom

Deactivated mobile number not assigned to new user for 90 days, TRAI tells Supreme Court; Whatsapp data removed when account inactive for 45 days. Rajeswari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 951 : (2024) 2 SCC 604

Supreme Court upholds centre's decision to relax AGR dues payment by telecom cos; but says filing application to modify orders was more appropriate. Anshul Gupta v. Prime Minister Office, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 765

Temple

Kamakhya temple: Doloi samaj running temple affairs satisfactorily, says Assam Govt; Supreme Court allows present arrangement to continue. Kabindra Prasad Sarma v. Chief Secretary Government of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 993

Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Himachal Pradesh)

Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Himachal Pradesh); Section 118 - The whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings. Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose. The purpose is to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. A person who is not an agriculturist can only purchase land in Himachal Pradesh with the permission of the State Government. The Government is expected to examine from a case-to-case basis whether such permission can be given or not - By merely assigning rights to an agriculturist, who will be using the land for a purpose other than agriculture, would defeat the purpose of this Act. (Para 17) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Tort

'Can't direct govt to introduce bill': Supreme Court sets aside HC directions to make law commission statutory body & codify tort law. Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : AIR 2023 SC 3827

Transfer of Property Act 1882

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Difference between 'mortgage by conditional sale' and 'sale with condition of retransfer' – Explained. (Para 25) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 8 - In the absence of an express or implied indication, a transfer of land would pass to the transferee all things attached to the earth, including the plant and machinery embedded on the land - Merely because no express reference to plant and machinery was contained in the Recital Clause of the Sale Deed, it cannot mean that the interest in the plant and machinery which stood attached to the land which was scheduled in the Deed, was not conveyed to the vendee. Therefore, the value of plant and machinery must also be ascertained for computation of stamp duty - Only such plant and machinery, which was permanently embedded to the earth and answered the description of the immovable property, as defined in law, can be said to have been conveyed under the deed. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357 : (2023) 8 SCR 1098

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - A Will or General Power of Attorney (“GPA”) cannot be recognized as title documents or documents conferring right in any immovable property - the non-execution of any document by the GPA holder consequent to it, renders the said GPA useless. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : AIR 2023 SC 2754 : (2023) 7 SCC 361

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - an Agreement to Sell is neither a document of title nor a deed of transfer of property by sale. Therefore, it does not confer any absolute title over the Property. However, the factors such as entering into an Agreement to Sell, payment of entire sale consideration and being put in possession by the transferor, shows that the de-facto possessory rights based on the part performance of the Agreement to Sell. The possessory right is not liable to be disturbed by the transferer and the transferer's entry into the Suit Property subsequently was as a licencee and not as the owner of Property. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : AIR 2023 SC 2754 : (2023) 7 SCC 361

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - In connection with the general power of attorney and the will so executed, the practice, if any, prevalent in any State or the High Court recognizing these documents to be documents of title or documents conferring right in any immovable property is in violation of the statutory law. Any such practice or tradition prevalent would not override the specific provisions of law which require execution of a document of title or transfer and its registration so as to confer right and title in an immovable property of over Rs.100/- in value. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : AIR 2023 SC 2754 : (2023) 7 SCC 361

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - Sale deed - Normally, on the execution and registration of a sale deed containing recitals regarding the payment of consideration and delivery of possession, the sale is complete even if the sale price is not paid and, therefore, it will not be possible to cancel the sale deed in its entirety. However, the exception to the said rule is the practice of ta khubzul badlain. The use of the expression ta khubzul badlain in a sale deed by itself will not be determinative of the true nature of the transaction. It cannot be read in isolation. All the terms and conditions and recitals in the document will have to be considered to decide the real nature of the transaction. (Para 13) Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 58(c) - A transaction cannot be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale. (Para 25.3) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Transfer of Property Act 1882; Section 60 - Right to redemption of mortgage- Unless the equity of redemption is so extinguished, a second suit for redemption by the mortgagor, if filed within the period of limitation, is not therefore barred. (Para 61, 62) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Principle of Estoppel - Though the release deed executed by the son was with respect to only a spes successonis right, his conduct of relinquishment will bind his sons through estoppel-despite the fact that what was purported to be released by Shri Chandran, was a mere spec successonis or expectation his conduct in transferring/releasing his rights for valuable consideration, would give rise to an estoppel. The effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel. (Para 23) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65 : AIR 2023 SC 659 : (2023) 1 SCR 261

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 51 - Section 51 applies in terms to a transferee who makes improvements in good faith on a property believing himself to be its absolute owner -In order to attract the Section the occupant of the land must have held possession under colour of title, his possession must not have been by mere possession of another but adverse to the title of the true owner and he must be under the bone fide belief that he has secured good title to the property in question and is the owner thereof - Section 51 gives only statutory recognition to the above three things I it was after encroaching upon the land in question and ignoring the absence of any title that the defendant made structures thereon at his own risk -Once it is so found, the defendant cannot be treated as a 'transferee' within the meaning of the TP Act and for the purpose of Section 51, TP Act. (Para 7-11) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 52 - Lis Pendens - It is a well-nigh settled position that wherever TP Act is not applicable, such principle in the said provision of the said Act, which is based on justice, equity and good conscience is applicable in a given similar circumstance, like Court sale etc. - Transfer of possession pendente lite will also be transfer of property within the meaning of Section 52 and, therefore, the import of Section 52 of the TP Act is that if there is any transfer of right in immovable property during the pendency of a suit such transfer will be non est in the eye of law if it will adversely affect the interest of the other party to the suit in the property concerned. We may hasten to add that the effect of Section 52 is that the right of the successful party in the litigation in regard to that property would not be affected by the alienation, but it does not mean that as against the transferor the transaction is invalid. (Para 16) Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261 : AIR 2023 SC 1780 : (2023) 6 SCR 359

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 6 (a) - spes successonis - A living man has no heir- Release deed executed by son relinquishing his share in the self-acquired property of father has no effect- A person who may become the heir and entitled to succeed under the law upon the death of his relative would not have any right until succession to the estate is opened up. Unlike a co-parcener who acquires right to joint family property by his mere birth, in regard to the separate property of the Hindu, no such right exists. (Para 10) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65 : AIR 2023 SC 659 : (2023) 1 SCR 261

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 6 (a) -Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successonis is ineffective to convey any right. By the mere execution of Release Deed, in other words, in the facts of this case, no transfer took place-This is for the simple reason that the transferor, namely, the father of the appellants did not have any right at all which he could transfer or relinquish. (Para 14) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65 : AIR 2023 SC 659 : (2023) 1 SCR 261

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 106 - In order to attract the application of Section 106, which requires 6 months' notice for termination of lease, the burden is on the Tenant to prove that manufacturing activity was being carried on in the leased Premises. A mere statement that manufacturing activity was being done would not suffice, the Tenant must explain the nature of work being done in factory shed. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827

Tribunal

Tribunal cannot direct framing of policy by Government: Supreme Court sets aside AFT direction on JAG. Union of India v. AIR Commodore NK Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1058

Fill vacancies in Central Govt Industrial Tribunals by August 31. Labour Law Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 536

Can HC exercise jurisdiction over a tribunal situated outside its territorial limits? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : (2023) 5 SCC 706 : (2023) 2 SCR 59

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules - In 2019, the Supreme Court struck down the 2017 Tribunal Rules in the case Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank and directed that the appointments should be made as per the provisions of the parent statute. Later, in the 2020 Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court dealt with the subsequent Rules framed by the Centre in 2020 in relation to tribunal appointments. In July 2021, the Supreme Court clarified in the Madras Bar Association case, that all appointments made before 4 April 2021 would be governed by the parent statutes. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Trust Act, 1882

Trust Act, 1882; Section 88 - Advantage gained by fiduciary - The Bench has upheld the NCLAT's order whereby the Successful Resolution Applicant was declared ineligible in terms of Trusts Act, since he had submitted two resolution plans, one in individual capacity and one in the capacity of Managing Trustee of the Trust. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Uniform Civil Code

States have power to constitute committees on Uniform Civil Code. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 22

United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976

United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 - Disciplinary proceedings are considered to begin only after the service of a chargesheet and not show cause notice. (Para 20.1) UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 893

University

The Governor as a Chancellor of a State University must act independently and not on aid & advice of the Council of Ministers. Dr. Premchandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

'Unwarranted intervention of Kerala Govt' : Supreme Court quashes re-appointment of Kannur University Vice Chancellor. Dr. Premchandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Unlawful Aactivites

UAPA - 'Watali' precedent won't apply if evidence is of low probative value on surface level analysis. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : AIR 2023 SC 3926

No reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true: Supreme Court grants bail to two alleged maoists after 4.5 years' custody. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317 : (2023) 6 SCC 65

Mere membership of unlawful organization is UAPA offence: Supreme Court overrules 2011 precedents. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

No vagueness in UAPA provision criminalising membership of banned organisation; no chilling effect. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - In National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 held that the expression “prima facie true” would mean that the materials / evidence collated by the investigating agency in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the chargesheet must prevail, unless overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, materials must show complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offences. What this ratio contemplates is that on the face of it, the accusation against the accused ought to prevail. In our opinion, however, it would not satisfy the prima facie “test” unless there is at least surface-analysis of probative value of the evidence, at the stage of examining the question of granting bail and the quality or probative value satisfies the Court of its worth. In the case of the appellants, contents of the letters through which the appellants are sought to be implicated are in the nature of hearsay evidence, recovered from co-accused. Moreover, no covert or overt terrorist act has been attributed to the appellants in these letters, or any other material forming part of records of these two appeals. Reference to the activities of the accused are in the nature of ideological propagation and allegations of recruitment. No evidence of any of the persons who are alleged to have been recruited or have joined this “struggle” inspired by the appellants has been brought before us. Thus, we are unable to accept NIA's contention that the appellants have committed the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation. (Para 36) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the factors for granting bail under normal circumstances were discussed. It was held that the nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with; the larger interest of the public or the State would be relevant factors for granting or rejecting bail. Juxtaposing the appellants' case founded on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid allegations and considering the fact that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for granting bail. Allegations against them no doubt are serious, but for that reason alone bail cannot be denied to them. While dealing with the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act, we have referred to the materials available against them at this stage. These materials cannot justify continued detention of the appellants, pending final outcome of the case under the others provisions of the 1860 Code and the 1967 Act. (Para 43) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Mere participation in seminars by itself cannot constitute an offence under the bail-restricting Sections of the 1967 Act. (Para 29) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D - A bail restricting clause cannot denude the jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court in testing if continued detention in a given case would breach the concept of liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would apply in a case where such a bail-restricting clause is being invoked on the basis of materials with prima facie low-probative value or quality. (Para 42 - 43) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 15 - Mere possession of literature even if it inspires or propagates violence by itself would neither amount to a 'terrorist act' within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act, nor any other offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. (Para 26) Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Bombay High Court acquitting former Delhi University professor and activist G.N. Saibaba as well as others over their alleged Maoist links and remanded the matter back to the high court to be considered afresh by a different bench. State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 438

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - Materials placed on record do not state reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true - bail granted to two alleged Maoists. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317 : (2023) 6 SCC 65

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 10(a)(i) does not suffer from any vagueness and/or on the ground unreasonable and/or disproportionate. (Para 16.1) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784; Arup Bhuyan v. Union of India, (2011) 3 SCC 377 and Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam, 2011 (3) SCC 380 taking the view that under Section 3(5) of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 mere membership of a banned organization will not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence and does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence and reading down the said provisions to mean that over and 2 above the membership of a banned organization there must be an overt act and/or further criminal activities and adding the element of mens rea are held to be not a good law. (Para 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Upholds the Constitutionality of Section 10(a)(i) - Overrules the judgments in Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, Indra Das v. State of Assam and State of Kerala v. Raneef which held that mere membership of a banned association is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, unless it is accompanied with some overt violent-Court ought not to have read down Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967 more particularly when neither the constitutional validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967 was under challenge nor the Union of India was heard. (Para 11.5, 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - When an association is declared unlawful by notification issued under Section 3 which has become effective of sub-section 3 of that Section, a person who is and continues to be a member of such association is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine under Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967. (Para 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 10(a)(i) - Mere possibility of misuse cannot be a ground and/or relevant consideration while considering the constitutionality. (Para 16) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 10(a)(i) - Once an organization is declared unlawful after due procedure and despite that a person who is a member of such unlawful association continues to be a member of such unlawful association then he has to face the consequences and is subjected to the penal provisions as provided under Section 10 more particularly Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967. (Para 14.5) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

Unlawful Assembly

Section 149 IPC will be attracted if five or more persons specifically named in fir are facing trial separately. Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : AIR 2023 SC 1889 : (2023) 3 SCR 354

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as repealed in 1999 - There was a serious dispute with regard to taking of possession of the surplus land. There was a delay of about seven years in filing the first writ petition from the date when possession was allegedly taken by the State, after publication of the vesting notification. No documentary evidence such as a Khasra or Khatauni of the period between alleged date of taking possession and filing of the first writ petition was filed by the original petitioner. In the earlier two rounds of litigation, the High Court refrained from deciding the issue of possession of the surplus land even though that issue had arisen directly between the parties. Infraction of the prescribed statutory procedure for taking possession cannot be the sole basis to discard State's claim of possession, when it is stated to have been taken long before the date the issue is raised, held, that the High Court should have refrained from deciding the issue with regard to taking of actual possession of the surplus land prior to the cutoff date specified in the Repeal Act, 1999. Instead, the writ petitioner should have been relegated to a suit. (Para 35) State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; Section 2(q) - Meaning and import of the term 'vacant land' – the interpretation, spirit and object of the Ceiling Act, as it was envisaged at the time of its enactment, when juxtaposed against the regressive impact experienced in different States which is indicated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Repeal Act, invite an authoritative determination of all the related issues by a Larger Bench. (Para 37) Kewal Court Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 867

Value Added Tax Act, 2003

Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Kerala) - Amnesty Scheme - Since appeal is a statutory remedy, the assessee cannot be barred from seeking restoration of the appeal which was withdrawn by him as a pre-condition for availing the benefit under an Amnesty scheme, if the assessee is subsequently unsuccessful in availing the benefit of the scheme. The appellate authority as well as the Kerala High Court ought to have allowed the assessee to seek restoration of his appeal before the appellate authority so that the same could have been heard on merits. The court thus set aside the order of the High Court where it had upheld the appellant authority's decision rejecting assessee's application for restoration of appeal against the assessment order passed against him. P.M. Paul v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 774

Video Conferencing

No High Court should deny access to VC facility for hybrid hearings; free wifi must be given to bar members. Sarvesh Mathur v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 871

Virtual hearing facilities can't be restricted to advocates / litigants above a particular age. Sarvesh Mathur v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 871

Violence

'Can't keep the pot boiling over dead bodies': Supreme Court issues directions for dignified cremation/burial of Manipur violence victims. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Manipur violence: Supreme Court transfers CBI cases to Assam for pre-trial steps. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 729

'Gun firing incidents in courts deeply disturbing' : Supreme Court issues slew of directions for security in Courts. Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 628

Manipur - 'In sectarian conflict, mob uses sexual violence to send a message of subordination; state bound to stop this'. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

'Investigate if Manipur police officers colluded with violence' : Supreme Court to supervising officer - Directions. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

'Enquire into violence against women in Manipur from May 4' : Supreme Court explains mandate of committee of three women judges. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Supreme Court dismisses West Bengal govt's plea challenging HC direction to transfer ram navami violence cases to NIA. State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 569

Virtual Hearing

'Use Technology to facilitate virtual hearings, don't waste money spent on technical upgradation' : Supreme Court to all Courts, Tribunals. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Wage

'Basic wage' under epf act, cannot be equated with 'minimum wage' under Minimum Wages Act. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Waqf

Conducting survey is prerequisite before declaring property as wakf. Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454 : AIR 2023 SC 2769 : (2023) 7 SCR 388

Section 52A of Wakf Act cannot apply to tenants who took possession before enactment of this provision. P.V. Nidhish v. Kerala State Waqf Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 383 : (2023) 4 SCR 547

Beneficiary of waqf, not being trustee or co-owner, can claim title of waqf property by adverse possession. Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323 : (2023) 6 SCR 930

Wildlife

Kuno cheetah deaths - Supreme Court requests centre to take into consideration suggestions of expert committee in 'right earnest'. Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 616

Declarants of exotic live species as per 2020 MOEFCC advisory immune from prosecution under Wild Life Act & future amendments. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Time Limit under Rule 4(2) of Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules cannot be relaxed. Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215 : (2023) 2 SCR 1081

The Supreme Court forms a committee to oversee transfer/import of wild animals in India. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164 : AIR 2023 SC 1368

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Individuals who have made a declaration of ownership of 'exotic live species' in accordance with the advisory issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change are immune from prosecution - Since it has been held that Advisory was an Amnesty Scheme and declarants are immune from prosecution, the same would obviously mean that declarants are immune from prosecution or action under any future laws and amendments incorporated in the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972 - Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - As per Rule 4(2), application/declaration under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 for ownership certificate has to be made within a period of 180 days from the date of commencement of the Rules, 2003. Looking to the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A and the object and purpose for which Rules, 2003 has been enacted the period of 180 days prescribed under Rule 4(2) has to be construed and considered as mandatory, otherwise the object and purpose of the Act, 1972 and the Rules, 2003 shall be frustrated. (Para 5) Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215 : (2023) 2 SCR 1081

Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972 - Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - Once a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or wildlife animal article, fails to file such declaration and/or fails to make any application within the stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) then the bar/rigour under Section 40 shall be applicable and the ownership of such wildlife animal article of which the declaration is not made shall vest in the Government/forest department. (Para 5.1) Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215 : (2023) 2 SCR 1081

Will

Will can't be proved as per Section 69 Evidence Act by a random witness saying he saw an attesting witness signing it. Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 998

Will can't be presumed to be valid merely because it is registered. Dhani Ram v. Shiv Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 862 : AIR 2023 SC 4787

Principles to prove validity & execution of will : Supreme Court explains. Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : AIR 2023 SC 4680

Will can't be presumed to be genuine merely because it is aged more than 30 years old. Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190 : AIR 2023 SC 1422 : (2023) 2 SCR 237

Wikipedia

Adjudicating authorities especially Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) extensively referred to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their conclusion - While we expressly acknowledge the utility of these platforms which provide free access to knowledge across the globe, but we must also sound a note of caution against using such sources for legal dispute resolution - These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd­sourced and user­generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information - The courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources. (Para 14) Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 : AIR 2023 SC 498 : (2023) 1 SCR 1123

Wikipedia not completely dependable': Supreme Court cautions Courts and adjudicating authorities. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 : AIR 2023 SC 498 : (2023) 1 SCR 1123

Woman

'Woman not a chattel, has identity of her own; marriage won't take away her identity': Supreme Court strikes down income tax provision. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

Words and Phrases

“In relation to” - The use of the phrase “in relation to” in statutes is with a view to bring one person or thing into association or connection with another person or thing. The direct or indirect nature of such association or connection depends on the context. (Para 11.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

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 : AIR 2023 SC 314 : (2023) 1 SCR 473

Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013

Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 – Rule 5(v) – Pension - Qualifying service for pension – Service rendered as work charge – Dispute over counting of the period of work charged services for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pensionable service - Entire service as work-charged employee cannot be counted towards pension – The work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension or quantum of pension. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371 : AIR 2023 SC 2971 : (2023) 4 SCR 530

Workman

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Commission can be entertained only if there is a substantial question of law. Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : AIR 2023 SC 4438

Supreme Court asks UP Power Discom to pay over Rs 10 Lakhs as backwages to workman; Imposes cost of Rs 2 Lakhs. Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Workmen Compensation Act - Functional disability & not physical disability the determining factor to claim total disablement. Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543 : AIR 2023 SC 3478 : (2023) 8 SCC 217

'Uncontested claim of wife regarding husband's income be taken as gospel truth' : Supreme Court increases compensation for deceased workman. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - the objective of the Act is dispensation of social justice - When the wife of the deceased employee deposed his income on oath and the Employer admitted the same, then by no stretch of imagination the Deputy Labour Commissioner could have awarded lower compensation on minimum wage rate - the Supreme Court took an empathetic view and instead of remanding the matter back to High Court for re-consideration, it has itself awarded enhanced compensation to the deceased's family. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - Unchallenged statement of wife regarding deceased husband's monthly wage to be accepted as gospel of truth. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923; Section 2(1)(l) – It is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant (i.e., workman) has incurred total disablement. Thus, if the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement, the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act. The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause. Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement. (Para 28) Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923; Section 20 (1) and (2) - The insurer of the offending vehicle having filed the written statement seems to have not cross examined the claimants and their witnesses. Thus, the claim lodged by the claimants seeking for compensation would not partake the character of a “contested claim” as stipulated under the notification issued by the appropriate Government under the W.C. Act. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Writ Petition

Writ petition against an award passed by a facilitation council under MSMED Act not maintainable. India Glycols v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 992

Once the High Court admits a writ petition it cannot refuse to consider prayer for interim relief citing alternate remedy. Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 925

Writ petition not maintainable when civil suit for same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : AIR 2023 SC 3425

'Complete waste of time: Supreme Court imposes cost on litigant who filed writ petition after review was dismissed. K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Z+ Security

Highest Z+ security should be provided to mukesh ambani & family throughout India & abroad; cost to be borne by Ambanis. Union of India v. Bikash Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 147