Home
/

Supreme court
/
The Complete Supreme Court Annual...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

4 May 2024 2:06 PM IST

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Allotment of Plot - Demand of Additional Price - The dispute pertains to demand of additional price for the allotment of plot to the Respondent - the additional price can be demanded in case there is enhancement in cost of the land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is the admitted case of the Appellants that the land for allotment of the plot was never acquired. Hence, there could not be any enhancement in the cost of the land by any authority or court under the Land Acquisition Act. From these undisputed facts on record and the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter, there is no illegality committed by the learned court below in setting aside the demand of the additional price of the plot allotted to the Respondent. There is no merit in the present appeal. (Para 12 - 13) Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429 : AIR 2023 SC 2257

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Once it is found that the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are valid, then the claimant is not entitled to seek compensation under the 2013 Act. If the state has either paid compensation or taken possession then proceedings under 1894 would continue to be valid. (Para 5, 17) Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Act was made applicable to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the absence of the exercise of power by the Hon'ble Governor under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, the said law was applicable to the Scheduled Area. (Para 18) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - If the land is continued to be under temporary acquisition for number of years, meaning and purpose of temporary acquisition would lose its significance. Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years. It cannot be disputed that once the land is under temporary acquisition and the same is being used by the ONGC for oil exploration, it may not be possible for the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or to deal with the same in any manner. (Para 7) Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 5A - Merely because Section 5A has not been mentioned in the said order, the entire acquisition proceedings including notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 and more particularly the declaration which was issued after considering the report/objections under section 5A cannot be declared illegal. When the Collector has exercised the power of the appropriate government and a declaration under section 6 of the Act has been issued after considering the report on the objections under Section 5A of the Act, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the aforesaid ground. (Para 12, 12.3) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84

Land Acquisition Act 1894 - While determining the deduction for development charges, the courts should take into consideration important factors including the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, the purpose of acquisition etc. This exercise is required for ascertaining the percentage of deduction by the Courts. (Para 11) Mala v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 18 - Whether the Reference made to the Reference Court was within the limitation? Held, the issue of limitation raised by respondent- Committee before the Reference Court and before the High Court was not only not tenable but was highly unreasonable and improper. Considering the hardship caused to both the parties arrived at a Settlement and requested the High Court to dispose of the said writ petition in terms of the consent terms. The Reference Court after considering all the legal and factual aspects of the matter had rightly held that the Reference was filed with the Collector within the period of limitation as per the order passed by the High Court. The High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the said well-reasoned findings recorded by the Reference Court, and in setting aside the entire award and remanding the matter back to the Reference Court for deciding it afresh. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court being ex facie erroneous, the same are set aside. (Para 5 - 7, 9) Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711

Land Law

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act - The Supreme Court delivers split verdict on whether notice of land acquisition should be served on possessors whose names are not reflected in revenue records. Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 930

What does `vacant land' under Section 2 of Urban Land Ceiling Act mean? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Kewal Court Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 867

As a condition to relax zoning restriction, the government can ask landowners to transfer a portion free of cost for public utility. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat v. Kishor Sharad Borawake, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 830 : AIR 2023 SC 4519

HC's decision based on admitted documents & not disputed facts: Supreme Court dismisses orissa govt plea. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa v. G.P Panda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713 : AIR 2023 SC 4258

The Supreme Court reiterates principles of deduction for development charges in land acquisition compensation claims. Mala v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663 : AIR 2023 SC 3836 : (2023) 9 SCC 315

RFCTLARR Act - The Supreme Court sets aside the award passed during covid lockdown; says 'fair opportunity of hearing must be given to claimant'. Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Land Acquisition - Once proceedings under 1894 act are held to be valid, claimant can't seek compensation under the 2013 Act. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : AIR 2023 SC 3421

Pavement built on acquired land encroached by vendors; Supreme Court asks DDA to take action. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : AIR 2023 SC 3421

TN Highways Act can't be invalidated due to variance from RFCTLARR Act as it has received president's assent. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413

Supreme Court sets aside Andhra Pradesh High Court order which stayed probe into Amravati land scam; asks HC to reconsider. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Varla Ramaiah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 390 : AIR 2023 SC 2150

State & its instrumentalities cannot adopt an attitude of pick & choose in land acquisition compensation matters. Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312

Land Acquisition - After taking possession, land vests with state; any person retaining possession after that is a trespasser. Land and Building Department through Secretary v. Attro Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2023 SC 1964

Vitiated by favouritism': Supreme Court upholds quashing of Odisha Govt's land acquisition for Vedanta University of Anil Agarwal foundation. Anil Agarwal Foundation v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 300

RFCTLARR Act - Owner cannot pray for lapse of land acquisition after refusing to accept compensation. State of Gujarat v Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 247 : (2023) 2 SCR 696

Delhi Land Reforms Act not applicable once an area is urbanised under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191 : AIR 2023 SC 1427

MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam - Scheme will not lapse merely because it was not completed within 3 years despite substantial steps. Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84

'Land acquisition compensation can't be different based on the nature of ownership': Supreme Court strikes down noida authority's classification. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422

Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist without the State Govt. permission. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Land cannot be kept under temporary acquisition for years, It violates right to property under Article 300A. Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021

Sec 24(2) RFCTLARR Act - Benefit of lapse not available if delay in taking possession was due to pending litigation. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36 : AIR 2023 SC 415 : (2023) 1 SCR 683

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Delhi)

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Delhi) - Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Delhi) - Land Reforms Act not applicable to area covered under Municipal Corporation Act - Once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. (Para 36) Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191 : AIR 2023 SC 1427

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab)

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) - the partition having been accepted as per the “Naksha Be”, the joint status of the parties stood severed. The High Court misinterpreted the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and erred in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the appellate court. The Bench quashed the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) ; Section 118 - Disposal of other question - When a Revenue Officer takes a decision under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, for partition of property, then the said partition would stand completed and the joint status of the parties would stand severed; subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. (Para 30) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074

Legal Aid

Advocate appointed to represent the accused should be given reasonable time to go through the file & get ready. Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 732

Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981

Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981 - Merely because a person is having a licence and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop. (Para 6.6) Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180 : AIR 2023 SC 1395

Liquor

Allegation that liquor group paid Rs. 100 crores to Manish Sisodia debatable; but few distributors made profits of Rs. 338 crores. Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934

Limitation

Can't invoke Section 5 Limitation Act where statute prescribes lesser time period for a particular purpose. Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919

When no limitation period is prescribed, appeal must be filed within 'reasonable time' depending upon facts of each case. North Eastern Chemicals Industries v. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1064

Orders extending the limitation period during covid-19 also apply to period up to which delay can be condoned. Aditya Khaitan v. IL and FS Financial Services Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 845

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 : (2023) 3 SCC 229

Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96, 149 - Being short of sufficient funds to pay court fee is not a reason to condone delay in filing appeal - In such a scenario, an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. (Para 5-10) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 - An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day's delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. (Para 5) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Limitation Act, 1962; Section 5 - Justice oriented approach rather than the iron- cast technical approach to be adopted - Supreme Court restored an appeal before lower appellate court which had dismissed it on the ground that the delay of 52 days was not properly explained. (Para 3-6) Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572

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: AIR 2023 SC 288 : (2023) 3 SCC 229

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 54 - Specific Performance of Contract - When no time is fixed for performance, limitation runs from the period when the plaintiff had notice of refusal. (Para 27) A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 777

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - A liberal approach should be taken regarding delay in appeals filed by the State. (Para 37) Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - Effect of acknowledgment in writing - Where any acknowledgment of a liability has been made in writing by the party against whom any right is claimed, a fresh period of limitation would be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed, subject to such acknowledgment being made before expiry of the prescribed period for filing a suit or application in that respect. (Para 17) Axis Bank Ltd. v. Naren Seth, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 791 : (2024) 1 SCC 679

Lokayukta

Kerala Lok Ayukta only has recommendatory jurisdiction, cannot issue positive directions. Additional Tahsildar v. Urmila G., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

Supreme Court restores Odisha Lokayukta's probe order against Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi MLA. Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 135 : AIR 2023 SC 1202 : (2023) 2 SCR 560

Lokayukta Act, 2014

Lokayukta Act, 2014 (Odisha); Section 20(1) - No infirmity in Lokayukta's direction to the Director of Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack to conduct a preliminary inquiry - Supreme Court sets aside Orissa HC order which set aside Lok Ayukta direction. Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 135 : AIR 2023 SC 1202 : (2023) 2 SCR 560

Lottery

Supreme Court rejects Centre's challenge to maintainability of Meghalaya's suit challenging provisions of Lotteries Regulation Act. State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; Section 54 - the words used in Section 54 of the Adhiniyam are “fails to commence implementation”. That does not mean that there must be implementation of the scheme within the time stipulated under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. There is a clear distinction between the words “implementation” of the scheme and “to commence implementation”- word “implementation” occurring in section 54 of the Adhiniyam cannot be construed to mean that even after substantial steps have been taken by the authority towards the implementation of the scheme, the scheme shall lapse after the expiry of three years because of its non-completion within that period - Approves MP HC judgment in Sanjai Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of M.P.AIR 1991 MP 72. (Para 8, 9) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; Section 54 - When within three years various steps were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire the land by negotiations and even thereafter on failure to acquire the land by negotiations approaching the State Government to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. The High Court has adopted too narrow a meaning while interpreting and/or considering section 54 of the Adhiniyam. (Para 11) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007; Section 9(1) - It is only by way of regulating the fees so proposed that the AFRC would exercise the power of reviewing the proposed fees, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the educational institution concerned. The contrary stand taken by the AFRC, as is evident from its communications to the appellant society, therefore cannot be countenanced. It is not open to the AFRC to seek to unilaterally fix the fees to be charged by the appellant society for the professional courses offered through its educational institutions. (Para 16) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

Manual Scavenging

'Completely eradicate manual scavenging': Supreme Court directs Union & States; increases compensation for sewer deaths to Rs. 30 lakh. Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917

'Ensure manual sewer cleaning is completely eradicated' : Tead 14 directions issued by Supreme Court against manual scavenging. Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917

Marine Insurance Act, 1963

Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - An insured party seeking insurance coverage based on a Classification Certificate for a vessel must proactively bring any shortcomings or defects to the attention of the Classification Society before the certificate is issued. This is important as the insurance coverage is based on the assumption that the Classification Society has diligently assessed all aspects before issuing the certificate. (Para 16, 21) Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640

Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - If the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness. (Para 16) Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640

Marriage

Supreme Court refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, asks union govt to form committee to determine rights of queer unions. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Marriage equality case - No right for queer couples to adopt children, supreme court holds by 3:2 majority. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Queerness not an urban, elitist concept: Supreme Court declares. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

End discrimination against queer couples, address exclusion of same-sex partners from benefits: Supreme Court to State. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Marriage Equality - 5 reasons why the Supreme Court didn't include same-sex unions under the Special Marriage Act. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Right to civil union, adoption, transgender persons' right to marry: where Supreme Court bench agreed & disagreed in marriage equality case. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Marriage equality case - Conclusions and directions of Supreme Court judgments. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Marriage is considered 'pious' in Indian society: divorce on ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' is not always desirable. Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 873 : AIR 2023 SC 4920

Hindu marriage can be dissolved through customary divorce if the existence of such a customary right is established. Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 848

Child from void / voidable marriage cannot be treated as coparcener by birth in Mitakshara Hindu Undivided Family. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : (2023) 10 SCC 1 : AIR 2023 SC 4707

Children of invalid marriages have right in their parents' share in hindu joint family property. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Advocates should not solemnise 'self-respect marriages' in professional capacity but can act as witnesses in private capacity. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735

Self-respect marriages don't require public solemnisation or declaration : Supreme Court overrules Madras HC Judgment. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735

Keeping spouses together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage is cruelty to both parties : Supreme Court dissolves marriage. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Law presumes marriage when man and woman cohabits for a long time. Shiramabai v. Captain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 672 : AIR 2023 SC 3920

Supreme Court dismisses plea to raise age of marriage for women as 21 years, says it's for parliament to decide. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 143

Maternity Benefit

Maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701 : (2024) 1 SCC 421

Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 - Maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. (Para 10) Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701 : (2024) 1 SCC 421

Media

'Police briefing should not result in media trial': Supreme Court directs MHA to frame guidelines; asks DGPs to give suggestions. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : AIR 2023 SC 4497 : (2023) 9 SCC 186

Medical

MBBS - Supreme Court dismisses plea of student with 80% locomotor disability for medical admission in PwD quota. Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 956

MBBS admission in pwd quota - Disability assessment report must explain how the candidate can't pursue the course. Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 841

NEET PG: Supreme Court grants relief to candidate denied benefit of OCI card holder based on 2021 MEA notification. Pallavi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 741

NEET PG - Students who take admission in all india quota can't vacate seats after 2nd round of AIQ counselling. Amrit Malik v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 684

MBBS: Supreme Court allows repatriated foreign medical students in the penultimate year to clear final exams in two attempts. Archita v. National Medical Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 275

MBBS: Supreme Court imposes Rs 2.5 crores penalty on medical college for illegal admissions; protects students. National Medical Commission v. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 113 : AIR 2023 SC 942 : (2023) 1 SCR 519

Prescribing lesser qualifications for medical practitioners serving rural areas is unconstitutional. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57

The Supreme Court strikes down Assam law allowing diploma holders to treat specified diseases and perform minor procedures. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Medical Council Act, 1956

Medical Council Act, 1956; Section 10A - Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 - the 2015 Act is not in conflict with the Indian Medical Council Act, since the Act does not deal with community health professionals who would practise as allopathic practitioners in the manner as they were permitted to practise under the Assam Act, in rural areas of the state. Hence, the Act of 2015 is not hit by Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution and is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

Medical Insurance

Once an insurer accepts that concealment of disease was not material, reimbursement & renewal can't be refused. Om Prakash Ahuja v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 509 : AIR 2023 SC 3257

Medical Negligence

No case of medical negligence if complications suffered by a patient totally unrelated to the medical procedure undergone. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 926

To hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. M.A Biviji v. Sunita, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931

Medical negligence and res ipsa loquitur - Where negligence is evident, the burden of proof shifts to the hospital. Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826

Prioritise cases of HIV positive persons: Supreme Court directs all Courts; issues directions to Centre and States to enforce HIV Act. Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826

'Army & Air Force liable': Supreme Court awards rs 1.5 crore compensation to air veteran who contracted HIV during blood transfusion. Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826

The Supreme Court sets aside adverse observations by NCDRC against top cardiologist Dr. Upendra Kaul. Upendra Kaul v. S.C. Mathur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 676

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - A foetus is dependent on the mother and cannot be recognized as an individual personality from that of the mother as its very existence is owed to the mother. It would be incongruous to conclude that the foetus has a separate identity from the mother and in spite of the physical or mental health of a mother being under threat, she will have to continue her pregnancy until the foetus is born which would endanger her delicate health. Such a position is contrary to Article 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India which recognize the right to life and liberty and particularly those of a woman. (Para 7) In the matter of Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - One cannot also lose sight of the fact that reproduction is unique to women and throughout her life, a woman goes through the process of menstruation, pregnancy, delivery, post-delivery phase and ultimately menopause. Right to reproductive health being a woman's human right would also include the right to an abortion. Otherwise, a woman who is forced into an unwanted pregnancy would experience physical and mental trauma and to endure the pregnancy which may continue in the post-natal period owing to which she would have the burden of bringing up an additional child and consequently, may lose out on other opportunities in life including right to employment and contribution to the income of the family. (Para 7) In the matter of Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - The pregnant lady is not interested in continuing with the pregnancy. In such a situation whether the child to be born is viable or if the child would be a healthy child are not relevant considerations. What is to be focused upon is, whether, the pregnant lady intends to give birth to a child or not. (Para 6) In the matter of Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - “To give birth to an unwanted child or not” is the question posed by the appellant in this appeal, being unsuccessful before the Gujarat High Court. It is significant to note that the High Court has not taken into consideration the relevant facts that the appellant was pregnant for 25 weeks and 6 days +/- 2 weeks and the weight of foetus was around 914 grams as per ultra-sonography report. The report further stated that although there is no congenital abnormality in the foetus, the medical termination of the pregnancy could be done only if the Court permits, after taking the consent of the appellant and explaining potential risk to maternal health. However, the following paragraphs of the report have not been noted by the High Court that at present the survivor is clinically fit for above mentioned procedure and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy would not adversely affect child bearing capacity and General Health of the Survivor in future. We find that in the absence of even noticing the aforesaid portion of the report, the High Court was not right in simply holding that “the age of the foetus is almost 27 weeks as on 17.08.2023 and considering the statements made by the learned advocate for the petitioner-victim and the averments made in the application the petition for medical termination of pregnancy stands rejected”, which, in our view is ex facie contradictory. (Para 9, 10) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - A woman alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion. (Para 17) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - In Indian society, within the institution of marriage, generally pregnancy is a reason for joy and celebration and of great expectation, not only for the couple but also for their families and friends. By contrast, pregnancy outside marriage, in most cases, is injurious, particularly, after a sexual assault/abuse and is a cause for stress and trauma affecting both the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman the victim. Sexual assault or abuse of a woman is itself distressing and sexual abuse resulting in pregnancy compounds the injury. This is because such a pregnancy is not a voluntary or mindful pregnancy. (Para 13) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - In the context of abortion, the right of dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Although human dignity inheres in every individual, it is susceptible to violation by external conditions and treatment imposed by the State. The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the state is central to the idea of human dignity. Deprivation of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical well-being also injures the dignity of women. (Para 18) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Menstrual Hygiene

The Supreme Court directs the Union Government to frame national policy on free sanitary napkins & safe disposal mechanisms in schools. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 309 : AIR 2023 SC 3444

Mental illness

Supreme Court orders release of daughter suffering from mental illness after 12 year sentence for homicide of father. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Migrant Labourers

The Supreme Court directs States to provide ration cards to migrant / unorganized workers registered on the centre's e-shram portal within 3 months. In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 332 : AIR 2023 SC 2085

Mines & Minerals

Mineral (Auction) Rules 2015 - State entitled to annul tender notification when number of technically qualified bidders is less than 3. State of Jharkhand v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1002

MMDR Act - Supreme Court explains exceptions to Sec 10A(1) which makes mining lease applications received before 12.01.2015 ineligible. State of West Bengal v. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 787

'Pending application for mining lease doesn't create any vested right' : Supreme Court upholds Rajasthan Rule introducing auction. State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : AIR 2023 SC 3586

Collector is competent authority to cancel lease deed under Rule 51(7) OMMC Rules. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : AIR 2023 SC 1317 : (2023) 2 SCR 72

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Sections 10-A, 10-A (1), 10-A (2)(b) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Concession Rules, 2016; Rule 61 and Proviso - Exceptions applicable to Section 10-A (1) of the MMDR Act - Where a prospecting licence has been granted to the permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, and the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements specified in Section 10- A (2)(b) of the MMDR Act, the bar of Section 10-A (1) shall not be applicable. Another exception was when the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval or the State Government had issued a 'Letter of Intent' for grant of mining lease before coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 787

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Section 15 - Appeals seek to overturn the decision of the High Court declaring Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7 (3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as unconstitutional. Held, in any case, the decisions of the High Court rendered earlier do not stand in the way of the impugned amendments. They were with respect to sandstone alone, while in the impugned judgment the High Court applied it to all the minor minerals. In the decision rendered by the High Court dated 13.03.2013 all the applications were directed to be considered as per the amended Rules. In fact, the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned order is contrary to the earlier order passed. The impugned Rules have been introduced in exercise of the power conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. There is neither a right nor it gets vested through an application made over a government land. Law does not facilitate hearing the parties in bringing an amendment by an authority competent to do so. The High Court has totally misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a delegation of power to the first appellant which was rightly exercised as conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgments. (Para 22) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586

Minor Mineral Concession Rules

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (Rajasthan); Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7 (3) - Legal Malice – Amendment made vide Notification dated 28.01.2011 to Rule 4 and 7 - It is contended that the impugned Rules have been brought forth only to nullify the effect of the judgments. The Appellants have duly complied with the orders passed. Even otherwise, law is quite settled that the basis of a judgment can be removed and a decision of the court cannot be treated like a statute, particularly when power is 2 available to act and it is accordingly exercised in public interest. In such a view of the matter, do not find any legal malice in the amendments. (Para 21) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (Orissa) - Rule 51(7) - Collector is the competent authority to cancel a lease deed for non-production of solvency certificate. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : AIR 2023 SC 1317 : (2023) 2 SCR 72

Mistake

'There was a mistake on part of this court': Supreme Court recalls order disbursing money to two persons in unitech case. Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 263 : AIR 2023 SC 1626 : (2023) 4 SCR 950

Mobile Tower

State govt has power to impose permit fee on erection of mobile towers. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd; v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Money Laundering

ED can't invoke PMLA using Section 120B IPC when criminal conspiracy isn't linked to a scheduled offence. Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 : AIR 2024 SC 117

Person accused of a PMLA offence need not be an accused in a scheduled offence. Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

When detention of an accused is continued by court, trial must be completed in a reasonable time. Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 995 : AIR 2024 SC 169

Manish Sisodia Bail - The Supreme Court doubts ED's contention that mere generation of proceeds of crime amounts to money laundering. Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934

PMLA - Courts not obliged to grant bail just because the accused is a woman; first proviso to S.45 not mandatory. Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1057

Supreme Court dismisses bail plea of Saumya Chaurasia, former Chhattisgarh CM's Dy Secretary, in money laundering case. Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1057

ED needn't give reasons in writing to accused at time of arrest, can give within 24 hrs; 'pankaj bansal' doesn't apply retrospectively. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1059

PMLA - If arrest of accused isn't valid & lawful as per Section 19, an order of remand shall fail on that ground. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Unitech Case : Supreme Court rejects ED's challenge to bail granted to Preeti Chandra in money laundering case. Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Supreme Court allows ED probe against TN Minister V Senthil Balaji in cash-for-jobs scam, quashes HC Order for fresh investigation. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : AIR 2023 SC 3171 : (2023) 8 SCR 1026

The Supreme Court refuses to refer 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary' judgment, which upheld PMLA provisions, to a larger bench. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : AIR 2023 SC 3171 : (2023) 8 SCR 1026

'Receipt of bribe is an act of money laundering': Supreme Court says registration of FIR in corruption case sufficient to launch ED probe.Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : AIR 2023 SC 3171 : (2023) 8 SCR 1026

PMLA - Accused not entitled to bail in money laundering case merely because chargesheet has been filed in predicate offence. Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 433 : AIR 2023 SC 2324

Section 45 PMLA conditions applicable to anticipatory bail applications for money laundering offence. Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Jurisdiction of PMLA Court to try money laundering offence not limited to the place where proceeds of crime come into possession of the accused. Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86 : AIR 2023 SC 875 : (2023) 4 SCC 357

Supreme Court dismisses Rana Ayyub's plea challenging jurisdiction of ghaziabad court to try PMLA case against her. Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86 : AIR 2023 SC 875 : (2023) 4 SCC 357

Trial of scheduled offence should take place in special court which has taken cognizance of offence of Money-Laundering. Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86 : AIR 2023 SC 875 : (2023) 4 SCC 357

Motor Vehicle

Aggregators License - States may keep in mind centre's guidelines while framing rules. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100 : (2023) 4 SCC 349

Can employee insured under ESI Act claim motor accident compensation? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Rajkumar Agrawal v. Vehicle Tata Venture, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 62

License necessary to operate as cab aggregator: Supreme Court asks uber to apply for license from Maharashtra Govt. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : (2024) 1 SCC 438

LMV license issue: supreme court concerned about impact on drivers' livelihood if 'Mukund Dewangan' is reversed; urges centre to consider amendments. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 793 : (2024) 1 SCC 818

Motor accident claims need not be filed before the MACT of the area where the accident occurred. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

'No negligence' finding in the final report has no bearing on the claim petition as the standard of proof is different. Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : AIR 2023 SC 3349

No right to recovery for the insurer merely because the vehicle owner didn't verify the driver's license. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 938

Physical disability must be assessed with reference to the victim's nature of work. Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : AIR 2023 SC 3601 : (2023) 8 SCC 193

Social status of deceased to be considered if there's no definite proof of income. Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 697

Supreme Court criticises 'lethargic attitude' of states in not filing compliance report. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Supreme Court directs insurance company to pay 4 lakh to insured who incurred medical expenses for treatment of person injured in motor accident. Hem Raj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 574

Supreme Court enhances compensation of victim with 75% disability, awards compensation for loss of marriage prospects. Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : AIR 2023 SC 3333

Supreme Court sets aside motor accident compensation awarded to elder brothers of deceased; says they weren't dependents. New India Assurance Company v. Anand Pal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1047

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Aggregators License - The Guidelines issued by the Central Government in 2020 are only of persuasive value and are not mandatory. The ultimate decision on granting a license and formulating rules lies with the State Government, who may consider the Guidelines while making their decision- When the State Government formulates rules in pursuance of its power under Section 96, it may also bear in mind the Guidelines which have been framed by the Union Government in 2020. (Para 8, 9) Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100 : (2023) 4 SCC 349

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Appellant was working as a gunman. On account of amputation of his right leg above the knee, he was terminated from service. It is not a matter of dispute that a person with his right leg amputated cannot perform the duty of a gunman. This is his functional disability. The Tribunal was right in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 100% and assessing the compensation accordingly. The High Court was in error in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 80%. (Para 10) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - In cases of motor accident claims, the physical disability caused due to an accident must be judged with reference to the nature of the work being done by the injured for assessing award of compensation. (Para 9) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The primary issue which has been referred to the Constitution Bench is whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. In Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663, a 3-judge Bench held that a separate endorsement in the "Light Motor Vehicle" driving licence was not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kgs. Thus, a person holding an LMV driving licence was entitled to drive a "transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class" having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. In 2022, the dictum in Mukund Dewangan was doubted by a coordinate bench and the matter was referred to a 5-judge bench. Held, statutory issue combined with social policy, not an interpretative exercise to be carried by court. An interpretation given by the Court could impact the livelihood of hordes of drivers. Therefore, the Central Government should consider bringing appropriate legislative amendments to strike a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns. (Para 14) Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 793 : (2024) 1 SCC 818

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be the end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. (Para 9) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Disability - Inability of the Claimant to work due to the disability cannot be denied on the ground that his Employer was not examined or no letter was produced from the Employer. The evidence of disability such as disability certificate and identity card issued by Directorate for the Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens, cannot be brushed aside. (Para 9) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Marriage Prospects - On account of the injuries sustained claimant has suffered 75% whole body disability. He has clearly deposed that on account of the injuries sustained and consequential disability suffered his marriage prospects have become bleak. Even in the affidavit filed on 30.09.2022 he has deposed that he has remained unmarried and none has come forward to marry him. In other words, the prospects of appellant getting married would remain a dream and for loss of the same he has to be suitably awarded compensation. Hence, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the “loss of marriage prospects. (Para 11) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Pain and Suffering - Enhanced the compensation towards 'Pain and Suffering' to additional Rs. 50,000/, while observing that the Claimant was hospitalized for ten days and was in continuous treatment thereafter. (Para 8) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Salary - Compensation on the aspect of salary to be revised as per the amount mentioned in salary certificate. Claimant has deposed that he was working as Marketing Executive in a private company and drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. as per salary certificate. No doubt claimant did not examine his employer. On this ground, it cannot be gain said by the Insurer that claimant was unable to earn or was not earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. The accident in question had occurred in the year 2007. Even a mason at that point of time was earning not less than Rs.300/- per day or in other words Rs.9,000/- p.m. during 2007. Claimant being a graduate and working as Marketing Executive, his plea of salary being Rs.8,000/- p.m. deserves to be accepted, as it is within proximity of truth and same could not have been ignored by the Tribunal and the High Court on hyper technical grounds. (Para 10) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 15.9 Lakhs from the previous amount of Rs. 2.3 Lakhs, to a motor vehicle accident victim, who sustained 75% whole body injury. The Bench has additionally granted compensation towards 'loss of marriage prospects' since the Claimant remained unmarried due to disability. (Para 11, 13) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - While considering a petition for compensation for death or injury in a road accident, the standard of proof to be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is the preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would not apply. The final report in the criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits. (Para 9, 10) Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 93 - No person can continue as an aggregator in the absence of a licence- Supreme Court directs Uber to apply for license. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : (2024) 1 SCC 438

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 93, 96 - Cab aggregators license- Supreme Court directs State of Maharashtra to expeditiously frame the rules on granting aggregators license so as to avoid litigation and uncertainty. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : (2024) 1 SCC 438

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - It is not mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for compensation under Section 166 before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred - Claimants can approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or the defendant resides. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Part 1: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-I]

Part 2: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-II]

Part 3: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-III]

Part 4: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-IV]

Part 5: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-V]

Part 6: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-VI]

Part 7: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-VII]

Part 8: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-VIII]

Part 9: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-IX]

Part 10: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-X]

Part 11: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XI]

Part 12: The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XII]