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

Armed Forces

The Supreme Court extends disability pension claim of army veteran for 10 years as allowed under pension regulations for the army. Ex L/NK Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Are civilian employees of armed forces unit run canteens government servants? the supreme court refers to a larger bench. Union of India v. Vinod Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 795

BSF Act - Even if an officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the court has to satisfy that confession is voluntary. Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758 : AIR 2023 SC 4262 : (2023) 9 SCC 720

'Discipline is a non-negotiable condition of service in Armed Forces': Supreme Court dismisses appeal of suspended army driver who overstayed leave. Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580 : AIR 2023 SC 3642 : (2023) 9 SCC 100

In the armed forces of the Union, including the paramilitary forces, utmost discipline, unity of command et al are the sine qua non. That said, the doctrine of proportionality still holds the field. (Para 36) B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Supreme Court sets aside punishment imposed on BSF Commandant for allegedly allowing trans-border drugs smuggling. B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303

High Courts can entertain challenges to orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal: Supreme Court overruled its Judgment. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Army Act, 1950

Army Act, 1950 - Discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a nonnegotiable condition of service. (Para 10) Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Army Act, 1950; Sections 45 and 63 - Miscellanious application filed by UoI seeking clarification of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39) - This Court was neither called upon nor has it ventured to pronounce on the effect of Sections 45 and 63 of the 1950 Act as also the corresponding provisions in other Acts or any other provisions of the Acts. We only make this position clear. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117 : 2023 Cri LJ 1400 : (2024) 2 SCC 334

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Andhra Pradesh)

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Andhra Pradesh) - Serious allegations prevail against the Appellants for being involved with the land mafia to usurp the Subject Land for private interests which was the precise reason for the Government to introduce legislation in the nature of the 1977 Act. Held, the Appellants are not entitled to any compensation under the existing constitutional framework. The proceedings emanating out of the second show cause notice (SCN) were valid; the Subject Land was non-alienable and hence was subject to the provisions of the 1977 Act. The Appellants had transferred the Subject Land in contravention to the provisions of 1977 Act and therefore, the resultant resumption order dated 27.01.2007 is valid. The Appellants are also not entitled to any compensation on account of the requisition of the assigned land. (Para 74 & 75) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Andhra Pradesh) - The parties have been litigating since the year 1994. During these decades, the Subject Land has acquired enormous value. Some of the documents on record do indicate that land mafia has already ousted the gullible Assignees and now have vulture's eyes on the land. Additionally, 'Greyhounds Commando Force', a security agency of paramount national importance, currently occupies the Subject Land in public interest. The Subject Land in its entirety is declared to have vested in the State Government. On further allotment, its ownership and possessory rights, free from all encumbrances, stand transferred in favour of the Greyhounds Commando Force. No Civil Court or High Court shall entertain any claim whatsoever on behalf of any Assignee, their legal representative, GPA holder or any other claimant under any Agreement to sell or other instruments, claiming direct or indirect interests in the Subject Land. There shall be a final quietus of title and possessory dispute over the Subject Land in favour of the Respondent­State and/or the agency to whom the said land has been allotted. (Para 76) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Auction

Possession of license to do business in shop does not entitle party to allotment of auction platform as matter of right. Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180 : AIR 2023 SC 1395

Aysuh Mission

Operating Guidelines of the National AYSUH Mission - Paragraph 4(vi)(b) - Order for the purchase of Ayurvedic medicines issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh in favour of Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (IMPCL) - Inviting tenders from the entities is the most transparent and non-arbitrary method of allocation that can be undertaken - The State must henceforth purchase Ayurvedic medicines only through a free and transparent procedure such as tenders. The State may deviate from this rule and procure medicines by nomination only if exceptional circumstances exist. In such a situation, the State must demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances on the basis of cogent material. (Para 31) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6 : AIR 2023 SC 314 : (2023) 1 SCR 473

Bail

Bail applications from the same FIR should be listed before one bench: Supreme Court to all High Courts. Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1066

Bail - Same FIR - Issue of conflicting decisions on bail applications arising from the same FIR, despite earlier directives to list all matters related to one FIR before the same Judge. In light of continued discrepancies across High Courts, the Court directs to communicate the order to all High Courts, emphasizing the importance of uniformity in handling bail applications arising from the same FIR. (Para 3 – 5) Rajpal v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1066

Ensure bail applications are listed at the earliest; personal liberty at stake : Supreme Court to all High Courts. Kavish Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1062

Section 498A IPC - Bail condition that husband should resume conjugal life with wife can't be imposed. Kunal Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1045

Mere claim of innocence or undertaking to participate in trial not sufficient reasons to grant bail in serious offences. State of Jharkhand v. Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1038

Once the Court concludes that a person is entitled to bail, granting bail for a limited period is illegal. If an order granting interim bail was to be passed, the bail application should have been kept pending. Manoranjan Rout v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

Supreme Court denies anticipatory bail to IPS officer who allegedly got conman to pose as HC Chief Justice to influence corruption probe. Aditya Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1013

Police must secure transit remand for arrests outside the state to safeguard rights under Article 22. Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996

Conditions for transit anticipatory bail in FIRs registered in other states : Supreme Court explains. Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996

High Courts, Session Courts can grant interim/transit anticipatory bail even when fir is registered in another state. Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 996

Can't seek bail merely because the co-accused got bail; to apply parity, the individual role of accused must be seen. Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 995 : AIR 2024 SC 169

Section 362 Cr.P.C. bar not applicable to bail orders. Ramadhar Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Grant of bail can't be made dependent on surrender of co-accused. Munshi Sah v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 944

If trial is delayed for no fault of the accused, Courts must consider grant of bail. Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934

Supreme Court denies bail to former Delhi Dy CM Manish Sisodia in Delhi excise policy scam case; directs to fast track trial. Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934

Bail - Cancellation of - If it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail. (Para 20) Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924 : AIR 2023 SC 5620

'Trial took 40 years!': Supreme Court grants bail to 75 year-old rape-murder convict, asks HC to hear his appeal on priority. Banamali Choudhury v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 836

The Supreme Court disapproves of the High Court order limiting bail to three months. Ranjit Digal v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 772

'One can't apply one bail order to all subsequent cases' : Supreme Court refuses bail in PACL scam. PACL v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 747

Can anticipatory bail be granted to proclaimed offender ? only in exceptional & rare cases, holds the Supreme Court. State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Expressing serious concern, the Supreme Court asks Patna HC CJ to look into the delay in uploading the court order. Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 738

Supreme Court surprised by Gujarat HC granting bail to murder accused based on 'settlement' with victim's son; chastises state for not challenging order. Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Supreme Court affirms bail granted to former Andaman Chief Secretary Jitendra Narain in Port Blair gang rape case. XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718

'Age-old principle "where women are respected, gods live there" would recede to background' : Supreme Court cancels bail to gang-rape accused. Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : AIR 2023 SC 4165

“How can we start selling bail like this": supreme court says onerous bail conditions must not be imposed ordinarily. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Antilia bomb scare case - Supreme Court grants bail to former Mumbai Police officer pradeep sharma. Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699

Can bail condition requiring assurance from the embassy that foreign accused will not leave India be imposed? Supreme Court to examine. Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Bail conditions imposed by courts must be realistic considering the socio-economic background of the accused. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Supreme Court grants bail to Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in Bhima Koregaon case. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 575 : AIR 2023 SC 3926

Cannot grant interim protection to accused while rejecting anticipatory bail plea : Supreme Court 'amazed' at HC's self-contradictory order. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566

'Bail orders must be backed by reasons considering vital aspects': Supreme Court sets aside 'casual & cryptical' HC order. Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560 : AIR 2023 SC 3547

Accused not filing a petition to quash FIR / Chargesheet has no relevance in deciding bail application. Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554

Supreme Court grants bail to Teesta Setalvad; calls Gujarat HC observations 'perverse', 'contradictory'. Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554

Anticipatory Bail - Personal liberty is important, but courts must also consider the gravity of offence & impact on society. Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514 : AIR 2023 SC 3307 : (2023) 8 SCC 181

Don't grant bail in private cheating cases merely because the accused undertook to deposit money : Supreme Court reminds courts. Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : AIR 2023 SC 3484 : (2023) 7 SCC 461

Condition to furnish bank guarantee for granting bail is unsustainable in law. Karandeep Singh v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Accused cannot be denied bail on the sole ground that the co-accused has not surrendered. Sebil Elanjimpally v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 474

The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the practice prevailing in Orissa High Court whereby different bail applications arising out of same FIR are listed before different Benches of the High Court. Such practice leads to 'anomalous situation' as some accused may be granted bail by a Bench while some other accused persons (in the same crime) may be denied bail by a different Bench, notwithstanding that all of them are similarly placed in many cases. Pradhani Jani v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 455

High Courts can issue additional directions while considering bail pleas by virtue of powers under Article 226/227. Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435 : AIR 2023 SC 3263

The Supreme Court directs to send Sessions Judge for training as he was not following judgments on bail. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 410

Chargesheet not incomplete merely because it was filed without sanction; the accused can't seek default bail on that ground. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Don't seek extension of time for investigation at the last moment, accused will get right to default bail: Supreme Court to NIA, Police. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

In matters pertaining to citizens' liberty, courts should act promptly; avoid detailed deliberation of evidence in bail pleas. Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373

Filing an incomplete chargesheet without completing the investigation would not extinguish the right of the accused to get default bail. Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Seeking pre-deposit of bank guarantee for grant of bail is unsustainable. Makhijani Pushpak Harish v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 345

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

Accused not entitled to default bail when first extension (passed in absence of accused) wasn't challenged & second extension was passed in his presence. Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 297 : AIR 2023 SC 1901 : (2023) 2 SCR 824

'Trial judges shouldn't be placed in a sense of fear': Supreme Court sets aside HC order seeking explanation from judge for granting bail. Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 289

The order of the High Court directing that the appellant be arrested immediately and seeking an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was wholly disproportionate and was not warranted. Such orders of the High Court produce a chilling effect on the District judiciary. The members of the district judiciary cannot be placed in a sense of fear if they were to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases. Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Supreme Court expresses anguish at trial court dismissing bail application ignoring its judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 - Directs District Judge to transfer case to another Magistrate - Reminds that Prosecutors have duty to inform the court of the correct legal position. Deepak Kumar Azad @ Pappu v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 278

Bail can be granted in NDPS cases on ground of undue delay in trial despite stringent conditions in Section 37. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 : AIR 2023 SC 1648

Plain and literal interpretation of Section 37 NDPS Act would make bail impossible: Supreme Court adopts 'Prima Facie' Test. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 : AIR 2023 SC 1648

Right to Speedy Trial - Laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable - Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 : AIR 2023 SC 1648

Day of remand should be included for considering default bail claim: Supreme Court answers reference. Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249

All those undertrial prisoners and convicts who have been released on emergency parole / interim bail pursuant to the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee in compliance of the orders passed by this Court have to surrender before the concerned prison authorities within 15 days. In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 238

'Large number of remand orders passed in violation of law are from Uttar Pradesh': Supreme Court seeks Allahabad HC's intervention. Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Supreme Court warns magistrates who don't follow judgments on bail; says they might be taken off from judicial work & sent for training. Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

All prosecuting agencies / State Governments / UTs should issue directions to the Public Prosecutors so that neither in pleadings nor in arguments, is a stand taken contrary to the legal position enunciated by this Court. The circulation in this behalf should be made through the Director of Prosecution and training programmes be organized to keep on updating the Prosecutors in this behalf. (Para IV) Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Supreme Court displeased that Magistrates are passing custody orders in violation of the directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 - It is the duty of the High Courts that it ensures that the subordinate judiciary under their supervision follows the law of the land. If such orders are being passed by some Magistrates it may even require some judicial work to be withdrawn and the magistrate to be sent to judicial academies for upgradation of their skills. (Para ii) Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Ensure basic essentials such as FIR number, police station are recorded in bail orders: Supreme Court to all High Courts. Ravish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Bail can be cancelled if serious offences are subsequently added to FIR': Supreme Court sets aside bail in 'casting couch' case. Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Can HCs refuse to entertain anticipatory bail pleas for not exhausting Sessions Court remedy? Supreme Court to Consider. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177

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

Supreme Court expresses anguish at trial courts acting in violation of its judgments in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh LL 2021 SC 391 & Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 - We fail to understand why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial Courts are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex Court unnecessarily. Chandmal v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Interim victim compensation cannot be imposed as a condition for bail. Talat Sanvi v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 83 : (2023) 1 SCR 289

Supreme Court issues directions to avoid delay in release of prisoners after getting bail. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 76

If bail bonds are not furnished within one month, Trial Courts may consider suo motu relaxing conditions. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 76

Supreme Court disapproves Allahabad HC dismissing several bail applications on the same day for default. Rahul Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 64

Supreme Court overturned a bail condition imposed by the High Court that a person accused of illegally claiming Input Tax Credit must deposit Rs. 70 lakhs, the alleged amount of improperly claimed ITC - Centre conceded that such a condition is unsustainable when final assessment has not taken place. Subhash Chauhan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 61

Process of criminal law not for money recovery; Bail can be granted irrespective of payment of money involved. Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47 : (2023) 1 SCR 501

Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail / suspension of sentence. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Default bail can be cancelled on merits after presentation of chargesheet. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37 : AIR 2023 SC 457 : (2023) 4 SCC 253 : (2023) 1 SCR 741

View that default bail cannot be cancelled on merits will reward lethargic investigation. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37 : AIR 2023 SC 457 : (2023) 4 SCC 253 : (2023) 1 SCR 741

Bank

Banking Law - DBS Bank and its directors, who were appointed after the amalgamation with Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB) and had their appointments approved by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), cannot be held criminally liable for actions attributed to erstwhile directors of LVB. (Para 32) Religare Finvest Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 790 : AIR 2023 SC 4537 : (2024) 1 SCC 797

Banking Law - Amalgamation - Every scheme of amalgamation is statutory and sanctioned under the Banking Act. Such amalgamation is to ensure that the interests of the depositors, the creditors and others who had invested, or given credit to in the erstwhile bank, before its sickness, and that the general public are protected. It aims at securing larger public interest and health of the banking industry. Late intervention into the affairs of a bank can result in a “run” on it, resulting in serious loss of confidence in the intricately woven banking and financial system. If one sees this and the overall objective of the scheme, it is to ensure recovery of what are the bank's dues and ensuring protection of the creditors. (Para 32) Religare Finvest Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 790 : AIR 2023 SC 4537 : (2024) 1 SCC 797

Banking Law - Amalgamation - Criminal liability of a company : is recognized where it can be attributable to individual acts of employees, directors or officials of a company or juristic persons - recognized even if its conviction results in a term of imprisonment - cannot be transferred ipso facto, except when it is in the nature of penalty proceeding - the legal effect of amalgamation of two companies is the destruction of the corporate existence of the transferor company (in this case, LVB); it ceases to exist - that apart, only defined legal proceedings, are succeeded to by the transferee company, which, in this case, is the DBS Bank. (Para 30) Religare Finvest Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 790 : AIR 2023 SC 4537 : (2024) 1 SCC 797

PNB Regulations - Bank can't withhold PF and gratuity without proving actual loss caused by employee. Jyotirmay Ray v. Field General Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Though nationalised bank employees are 'public servants', protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. not available. A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : AIR 2023 SC 3811 : (2023) 8 SCC 711

Company's bank account can't be frozen for criminal investigation against an unrelated party. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Banks must give the opportunity of hearing to borrowers before classifying their accounts as fraud. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243 : AIR 2023 SC 1859 : (2023) 6 SCC 1

Banking Regulation Act, 1949

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act,1981 - If a cooperative society does not transact the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the BR Act, it would not be a cooperative bank. Thus, if a co-operative society is not a 'co-operative bank' within the meaning of Section 56 of the BR Act, then such an entity would be entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. But on the other hand, if it is a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 56 of BR Act, 1949 read with the provisions of NABARD Act, 1981, then it would not be entitled to the benefit of deduction under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act. (Para 15.8) Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 786

Bar Council

Bar Council of India can prescribe that only graduates from recognized law colleges can enrol as advocates. Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 481 : AIR 2023 SC 3608

Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015 - The due verification of advocates who are enrolled with the State Bar Councils, is of utmost importance to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice. Persons who profess to be lawyers, but do not either have the educational qualifications or degree certificates on the basis of which they could have lawfully granted entry to the Bar, pose a grave danger to the administration of justice to citizens. Hence, it is the duty of every genuine advocate of the country to ensure that they cooperate with the Bar Council of India which is seeking to ensure that the certificates of practice are duly verified, together with the underlying educational degree certificates. Unless this exercise is carried out periodically, there is a danger that the administration of justice would be under a serious cloud. (Para 10) Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : (2023) 6 SCC 144

Bar Council of India - Ensure enrolment fee does not become oppressive- different State Bar Councils are charging different fees for enrolment. This is something which needs the attention of the Bar Council of India, which is not devoid of the powers to see that a uniform pattern is observed and the fee does not become oppressive at the threshold of young students joining the Bar. (Para 44) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Bar Council of India should obtain English translation of documents in disciplinary proceedings. J. Johnson v. S. Selvaraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 979

Bar Council of India has powers to prescribe All India Bar Examination: Supreme Court; Overrules 'V Sudeer' Judgment. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Let final year students take AIBE, Ensure enrolment fee doesn't become oppressive: Supreme Court to Bar Council of India. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

On a long break from law practice?retake bar examination to rejoin the profession. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Supreme Court dismisses centre's curative petition seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Supreme Court dismisses Centre's curative plea seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide Corporation after reopening settlement entered in 1989 which was approved by the Supreme Court-The Union has filed the present curative petitions seeking to reopen the settlement after opposing attempts by private parties to do so. The responsibility was placed on the Union of India, being a welfare State to make good the deficiency and to take out the relevant insurance policies. Surprisingly, we are informed that no such insurance policy was taken out. This is gross negligence on part of the Union of India and is a breach of the directions made in the review judgment. The Union cannot be negligent on this aspect and then seek a prayer from this Court to fix such liability on UCC. (Para 46) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - While we sympathize with the victims of the awful tragedy, we are unable to disregard settled principles of law, particularly at the curative stage. Mere sympathy for the sufferers does not enable us to devise a panacea; more so while looking into the nature of dispute, and the multifarious occasions on which this Court has applied its mind to the settlement. (Para 40) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Union of India's claim for a 'top up' has no foundations in any known legal principle. Either a settlement is valid or it is to be set aside in cases where it is vitiated by fraud. No such fraud has been pleaded by the Union, and their only contention relates to a number of victims, injuries, and costs that were not contemplated at the time the settlement was effected - We are equally dissatisfied with the Union being unable to furnish any rationale for raking up this issue more than two decades after the incident. (Para 47, 48) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - A sum of Rs.50 crore lying with the RBI shall be utilised by the Union of India to satisfy pending claims, if any, in accordance with the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the Scheme framed thereunder. (Para 49) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Providing closure to a lis is also a very important aspect. This is more so in the context of the scenario faced by the Indian judiciary, where delay is almost inevitable. This concern would be further amplified in respect of a tort claim such as the present one - if evidence were to be led for each claimant, this would open a pandora's box in UCC's favour and would only be to the detriment of the beneficiaries. (Para 50) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Border Security Force Act, 1968

Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Even if the Officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the Court has to satisfy that the confession is voluntary. (Para 38) Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758

Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Supreme Court quashes the order of General Security Force Court imposing dismissal from service, imprisonment for 10 years and fine of 1 lakh on a a BSF commandment for allegedly allowing cross-border transport of substances banned under the NDPS Act-appellant held entitled to full retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation till date. B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Building

The Supreme Court upholds rule requiring builders to reserve open spaces in developed plots. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2023 SC 1011

Building Rules - Supreme Court upheld a rule which mandated that builders should reserve open spaces in the plots developed by them- Regulation 19 of Development Control Rules for the Chennai Metropolitan Area. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2023 SC 1011

Building Rules - Mandate to reserve 10% open space area does not violate Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution- It does not amount to compulsory acquisition. (Para 51, 66, 137,148, 154) Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2023 SC 1011

Building Rules - Open Spaces - Areas covered by the Open Space Regulations cannot be diverted for any other purpose - The respondents (local authorities) are duty-bound to ensure that the area set apart as OSR is stringently utilised only for the purpose in the Rule/Regulation. We direct that no area meant for OSR shall be utilised as dumping yards or any other purpose other than as OSR. (Para 178) Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2023 SC 1011

Canon Law

Kerala High Court's observation that church assets are governed by public trust law and Bishops have no power to alienate them are prima facie in nature, no finality can be attached to them. (Para 21, 22) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203 : (2023) 2 SCR 1014

Cantonment

No legal right to seek de-sealing of property by cantonment board, when building plan not been sanctioned. Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : AIR 2023 SC 3603

Cantonments Act, 2006

Cantonments Act, 2006 - A property sealed by Cantonment Board alleging unauthorized construction cannot be requested to be 'de-sealed', while the building plan of that Property has not yet been sanctioned by the Cantonment. (Para 15) Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568

Carriage

Section 16 Carriage by Road Act applicable to suit/ legal proceedings in connection with loss/damage to consignment alone. ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378 : AIR 2023 SC 2140

Carriage by Road Act, 2007

Carriage by Road Act, 2007; Section 16 - Suit and legal proceedings in connection with the loss or damage to the consignment alone are covered by Section 16 for which purpose, a notice is mandatory. The said provision has no application in reference to loss of any other kind or the suit or legal proceedings instituted for recovery of damages in respect of loss of different nature. (Para 17-19) ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378 : AIR 2023 SC 2140

Caste

Discrimination in allowing late submission of caste certificates: Supreme Court directs Gujarat Govt. to appoint 2 candidates 16 years after they applied. State of Gujarat v. Thakore Bhalabhai Umabhai, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 947

Caste or religion of litigant should never be mentioned in judgments : Supreme Court to all Courts. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam Mohanlal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 875

Persons who secure a job in reserved posts based on false caste certificates liable to be dismissed. Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644

CCS Pension Rules

CCS Pension Rules, 1972; Rule 2(g) and 17 - Past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account for pension. (Para 9) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 662

CCS Pension Rules; Rule 26 (2) - Unauthorized resignation from government service for another government job will result in the forfeiture of past service and pension benefits. (Para 17) Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807

CCTV

Comply with directions to install CCTVs in police stations: Supreme Court gives warning to Centre, States. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 134

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972; Rule 13 - Service rendered as casual / contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment - Can't be counted towards qualifying services for pensionary benefits - The High Court has materially erred in observing that the contractual service would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity. Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation v. Magi H. Desai, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 248 : AIR 2023 SC 1623

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - A case where a child is born to the deceased government servant after his death has to be contrasted with a case where a child is adopted by the widow of a government servant after his death. The former category of heirs are covered under the definition of family since such a child would be a posthumous child of the deceased government servant. (Para 14) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Sections 8 and 12 - Family Pension - A son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, could not be included within the definition of 'family' - Rights and entitlements of an adopted son of a Hindu widow, as available in Hindu Law, as against his adoptive family, cannot axiomatically be held to be available to such adopted son, as against the government, in a case specifically governed by extant pension rules. (Para 10-12) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - The phrase “in relation to a government servant” would indicate that the categories of persons listed thereunder, such as wife, husband, judicially separated wife or husband, son or unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, adopted son or daughter, etc. are sought to be brought into association with the deceased government servant. The context requires that association or connection of such persons with the deceased government servant must be direct and not remote. The said Rule requires that the family member must have a close nexus with the deceased government servant, and must have been dependent on him during his lifetime. (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

Central Excise

Supreme Court affirms penalty on 'Zarda' manufacturers for misclassifying product as 'chewing tobacco' for central excise duty. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad v. Urmin Products P. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Excise duty exemption - To determine if a product falls under description "intravenous fluids”, its composition & not its use matters. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Self-assessment of assessee not rendered malafide merely because it was based on a CETSTAT view which was later overturned. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512 : AIR 2023 SC 3219

Mere broad-basing of entries under Central Excise Tariff Act, cannot justify re-classification, without change in nature, character or use of the product. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Central Excise Act - No separate notice necessary for recovery of erroneous refund granted. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Central Excise Act - To be "related person", buyer & seller must have direct or indirect interest in each other's business. Bilag Industries P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Daman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Only retail sale can claim assessment benefits under Section 4A of Central Excise Act. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223 : (2023) 2 SCR 1147

Supreme Court upholds Sec 9D Central Excise & Salt Act; Asks cigarette company to pay Rs 5 lakh cost for cancer affected children. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Central Excise Act, 1944

Central Excise Act, 1944 - In order to determine whether a product would fall under the description of “Intravenous Fluids” so as to be eligible for exemption from excise duty, it is the composition of the product in question which is relevant and not whether the product is used for treatment of any particular disease. The veterinary products 'Calcium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)' and 'Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)' manufactured by the assessee fell under the description of “Intravenous Fluids”, and thus were eligible for exemption from excise duty. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Central Excise Act, 1944 - No separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of erroneous refund - Once the order in original sanctioning the refund came to be set aside in a proceeding under Section 35E of the Act and the proceedings under Section 35E was initiated within the time prescribed under Section 35E of the Act, thereafter there is no question of any further notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 4(A) - For a sale of goods to qualify for assessment benefits under Section 4(A) of the Act, it must be a retail sale, and there must be a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix a retail price on the goods for a sale to be considered a retail sale. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223 : (2023) 2 SCR 1147

Central Excise Act, 1994; Section 4(4)(c) - Test to determine "related party"- buyer and seller had to be interested in one another's businesses. Since two-way traffic is required, there shouldn't be any one-way traffic. Bilag Industries P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Daman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 11A(1) - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the CESTAT by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time barred. The court dismissed the contention that Reliance had deliberately suppressed and withheld material information and documents from the departmental officers by not filing the same and thus, the ground for invoking the extended period of limitation available under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available to the Department. The bench held that during the relevant period in consideration, i.e., September 2000 to March 2004, Reliance was holding a bonafide belief that it was correctly discharging its duty liability by relying on the CESTAT's decision dated 28.7.2000 in the case of M/s IFGL Refractories Ltd, even though the same was overturned by the Supreme Court on 9.8.2005. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - Supreme Court endorses Delhi High Court judgment upholding Section 9D - Pulls up cigarette company for protracting proceedings - Asks it to pay Rs 5 lakh cost to any charitable organisation involved in providing help, assistance and relief to children suffering from cancer. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Mere broad-basing of entries under the Act, cannot justify re-classification, without a change in the nature, character or use of the product. The revenue department was not justified in seeking to re-open the settled position in relation to the classification of a product, merely on the ground of the amendment made to the Central Excise Tariff in the year 2012, which had made certain changes in Chapter 30 and Chapter 33. While holding that the said changes had no impact on the product in question, the court by applying the twin test of 'common/commercial parlance test' and the 'ingredients test', held that the said product merited classification as 'medicament' under Chapter 30 and not as 'cosmetic or toilet preparations' under Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Act. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines - Portable - Weight cannot be the sole factor to determine the factum of portability. Instead, the essential ingredients to logically establish whether an ADP is 'portable' are (1) their ability to be carried around easily which includes all aspects such as weight and their dimensions- In appropriate cases, this assessment would also take into consideration the necessary accessories which are required for safe and efficient usage such as mounted stands or any power adapters (1) the ADP must be suitable for daily transit of a consumer and would include aspects such as durability to withstand frequent commute and damage protection - The Concerned Goods are not portable for the reasons (1) the diagonal dimension of the Concerned Goods being minimum of the length of 18.5 inches and the same needs to be transported along with the power cable as well as the applicable stand in most cases if it is to be mounted and (2) there being no protective case designed by the markets for daily transport for these Concerned Goods. Such requirements make the Concerned Goods unable to be carried around easily during daily transit. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 : AIR 2023 SC 498 : (2023) 1 SCR 1123

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Since the customs authorities wanted to classify the goods differently, the burden of proof to showcase the same was on them. (Para 23) Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 : AIR 2023 SC 498 : (2023) 1 SCR 1123

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949; Section 9, 10 - The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF - Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination. (Para 6) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 : AIR 2023 SC 554 : (2023) 1 SCR 961

Cheque

Notice under S.138 NI Act invalid if omnibus demand is made without specifying cheque amount. Upasana Mishra v. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1075

S.138 NI Act - Availability of funds in other bank accounts not a defence; cheque dishonour relates to specific account. Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1046

Cheque dishonour cases - What should courts ask accused once presumption under s.139 ni act is applicable? the Supreme Court explains. Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866 : (2023) 10 SCC 148 : AIR 2023 SC 5018

Section 141 NI Act - Only that person who was responsible for conduct of company's affairs at the time of cheque dishonour is liable. Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 869 : AIR 2023 SC 4929 : (2024) 1 SCC 348

The Supreme Court comes to the rescue of a party who filed a cheque bounce case in wrong court after noting he got incorrect legal advice. Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Section 148 NI Act - Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule; can be relaxed if an exceptional case is made out. Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776

Cheque bounce case can be quashed u/s 482 only if the amount is patently non-recoverable; whether debt time-barred or not is a question of evidence. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : AIR 2023 SC 4369

Section 202 Cr.P.C. - Evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant in cheque cases can be taken on affidavit. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Cheque case against the firm's partner can be quashed only on strong evidence that he didn't have any concern with issuing the cheque. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : AIR 2023 SC 4044

NI Act - In a cheque case against a company, persons can't be made accused only because they're managing the company's business. Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622

Cheque Dishonour - Concurrent sentencing rule only when cases arise out of a single transaction. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584

NI Act - In cheque dishonour case, interim compensation can be ordered to be paid only after the accused pleads not guilty. Pawan Bhasin v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 537

Insolvency resolution of the company will not extinguish director's liability under Section 138 NI Act. Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Cheque cases can be transferred from one state to another invoking Section 406 Cr.P.C. Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125 : AIR 2023 SC 1151 : (2023) 2 SCR 511

Section 138 NI Act - Conviction cannot be confirmed overriding agreement between parties to compound the offence. B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75 : AIR 2023 SC 717 : (2023) 2 SCR 293

Section 138 NI Act - Accused relies on income tax returns to show complainant did not have financial capacity; Supreme Court affirms acquittal. Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46 : AIR 2023 SC 471 : (2023) 1 SCR 809

Complete Supreme Court  Annual Digest PART-I