SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Adverse Possession

The onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession shifts on the defendant, once the title of the property has been upheld in the name of Plaintiff by a judgment/decree in an earlier suit between the same parties. (Para 7) Prasanna v. Mudegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Amravati Land Scam

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order which stayed the probe into the Amravati Land Scam, in a plea moved by the government. The High Court ought not to have granted interim stay when it was not required as the entire matter was at a premature stage. The High Court is expected to decide the writ petition on merits in accordance with the law without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Varla Ramaiah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Animal Welfare

Supreme Court upholds laws allowing jallikattu, kambala & bull-cart racing In Tamil Nadu, Karnataka & Maharashtra. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

'Century old practice': Supreme Court disagrees with 2014 verdict which held that jallikattu was not part of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Jallikattu Case - Supreme Court refuses to extend fundamental rights to animals. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Jallikattu law can't be termed arbitrary merely because bulls lack natural ability to run like horses. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Arbitration

Limitation period for arbitration - cause of action to appoint arbitrator commences from the “breaking point” between parties. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Limitation period for arbitration - mere negotiations between parties will not postpone the cause of action. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

The Referral Court has the duty to conclusively decide the issue of ‘existence & validity of arbitration agreement’ raised at pre-referral stage. Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444

2015 Arbitration Amendment not applicable though S.11 application was filed after it, if arbitration notice was issued pre-amendment. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Award can be said to be suffering from 'patent illegality' only if it is an illegality apparent on the face of it. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 416

Court cannot, after setting aside the arbitration award, proceed to grant further relief by modifying the award. Indian Oil Corporation v. Sathyanarayana Service Station, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Arbitration: Supreme Court upholds rejection of S. 8 application since cause of action went beyond transaction containing arbitration agreement. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Bail

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

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

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

Central Excise

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

Civil Law

Security furnished by a judgment debtor in the form of a rented shop belonging to a third party cannot be accepted. Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 473

'Lis Pendens' under O. XXI Rule 102 CPC to transfer after suit's dismissal - Executing Court should determine if transfer was before appeal. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint to be rejected if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Constitution

Article 299 | No immunity from statute merely because a contract is entered in the President's name. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459

The Writ Court cannot stop implementation of a statutory provision without holding it unconstitutional. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Non-tribal person's right to settle down & vote in scheduled areas not taken away by 5th schedule of Constitution. Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431

GNCTD vs LG: Supreme Court holds Delhi Govt has control over "services" excluding Public Order, Police & Land. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Delhi Govt vs LG | Democratically elected Govt. should have power to control its officers to ensure accountability. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423

"Governance of States can't be taken over by Union': Supreme Court underscores importance of federalism in Delhi Govt vs LG Case. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Consumer Law

Definition of 'Consumer' includes 'Consumers'; Joint complaint by multiple consumers need not be filed in representative capacity. Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442

Contempt

Supreme Court sentences NRI father to 6 months imprisonment, imposes Rs 25 lakhs fine violating directions to bring minor son to india. Meenal Bhargava v. Naveen Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Contract Law

No judicial review in commercial matters unless a case of arbitrariness, mala fide, bias or irrationality is made out. Tender / Contract - Courts not to needlessly interfere in contracts involving technical issues. The judges do not possess the necessary expertise to adjudicate technical issues beyond their domain. Restraint must be practiced in cases where the Courts are aware that their interference in technical commercial matters would incur loss to the Public Exchequer. Tata Motors Ltd. v. BrihanMumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467

The Court should not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. A writ court should refrain from imposing its decision over the employer with respect to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer, unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467

When the Court initiates fresh tender at a stage when the contract is underway, the same consumes time and incurs losses to the public exchequer. The financial burden / implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467

The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467

Company Law

Section 140(5) Companies Act 2013 is constitutional; resignation of auditor won't end proceedings under Sec 140(5). Union of India v. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 388

No priority for workers' dues after liquidation of company under IBC: Supreme Court upholds Section 327(7) of Companies Act 2013. Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Criminal Law

‘Courts below failed to properly evaluate evidence’: Supreme Court acquits two convicts in 22 year old murder case. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Proposed accused has the right to be heard in revision filed against dismissal of petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465

Criminal Investigation – Voice Sample - Magistrate has the power to order the collection of a voice sample for the purpose of investigation. Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 463

'Numerous lapses in investigation': Supreme Court frees man awarded death penalty in case for rape & murder of 6 year old girl. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Supreme Court sets aside Bombay HC Order acquitting G.N. Saibaba, Remands appeals to HC for consideration by another Bench. State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 438

Supreme Court laments trial judges not using section 313(5) Cr.P.C.; asks judicial academies to take notice. Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Supreme Court sets aside conviction in 23 year old murder case; says prosecution failed to prove chain of circumstances. Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

The District Police Chief can't order further investigation without permission from the Magistrate or Higher Court. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402

‘Court not to sermonise on morality’: SC allows premature release of woman convicted for killing sons while attempting suicide. Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Supreme Court sets aside Magistrate's order directing police investigation into allegation of rape against BJP leader Kailash Vijayvargiya. Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Section 389 Cr.P.C. - Sentence can be suspended in appeal only if the convict has fair chances of acquittal. Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389

The Home Secretary cannot order further investigation or reinvestigation of case by another agency. Bohatie Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Criminal Trial

At the stage of hearing on the charges, the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and if no offence is made out, then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court. (Para 11) Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462

The High Court has not even referred to the evidence collected by Investigating Agency produced alongwith chargesheet in its entirety. Rather there is selective reference to the statements of some of the persons recorded during investigation. It shows that there was total non-application of mind. The High Court had exercised the jurisdiction in a manner which is not vested in it to scuttle the trial of a heinous crime. (Para 20) Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462

The duty of the presiding judge of a criminal trial is not to watch the proceedings as a spectator or a recording machine but he has to participate in the trial by evincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth. (Para 11, 12) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Customs

Supreme Court upholds withdrawal of Customs notification granting concession on import of printing machinery, on the ground of indigenous angle. Union of India v. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Customs Act 1962 - Supreme Court delivers split verdict on jurisdiction of settlement commission in relation to goods under Section 123. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Death Penalty

Mercy Petition - The Supreme Court refused to commute the death sentence of Babbar Khalsa terrorist Balwant Singh Rajoana to life imprisonment on the ground of the long pendency of the mercy petition before the President of India. The BKI operative was convicted for his role in the assassination of the former chief minister of Punjab, Beant Singh, in August 1995. There are directions by this Court vide orders dated 4.12.2020 and 2.5.2022 to dispose of the Mercy Petition of the petitioner. The Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation or creating law and order situation. It would not be within the domain of this Court to delve upon the decision of the competent authority to defer taking of any decision at present. It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues. As such this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions. The stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the decision on the Mercy Petition of the petitioner is also a decision for the reasons given thereunder. It actually amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present. It is, however, directed that the competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision. (Para 19 - 23) Balwant Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition - the argument regarding pendency of the Mercy Petition and there being a delay of more than 10 years cannot be sustained. Firstly, the petitioner himself never submitted any Mercy Petition. The alleged Mercy Petition of year 2012 was filed by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC). Further, after the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 27.09.2019, the proposal for considering the commutation of the death sentence of the petitioner was started and a decision was taken to keep the same pending till disposal of the pending appeals before this Court, filed by the coaccused as well as by CBI, as according to the competent authority, it would have a bearing and it could be relevant for taking final decision on the said proposal of commutation. Further, it was after the directions issued by this Court on 04.12.2020 and 02.05.2022 that the matter was again considered by the competent authority and it was decided to defer the question of commutation in view of the reasons given in the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, it cannot be alleged that there has been an inordinate delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition. The decisions relied in support of submission regarding inordinate delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition and resultantly commutation in such cases having been granted by this Court, do not help the petitioner in view of the facts and situation being different in those three cases and in the present case. (Para 17, 18) Balwant Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 391

E-filing

The judiciary has to modernize and adapt to technology. The tribunals can be no exception. This can no longer be a matter of choice. If some judges are uncomfortable with e-files, the answer is to provide training to them and not to continue with old and outmoded ways of working. If a lawyer or litigant is compelled to file physical copies in addition to e-filed documents, then they will not resort to e-filing. (Para 30) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

It is utterly incomprehensible why NCLAT should insist on physical filing in addition to e-filing. This unnecessarily burdens litigants and the Bar and is a disincentive for e-filing. This duplication of effort is time consuming. It adds to expense. It leaves behind a carbon footprint which is difficult to efface. The judicial process has traditionally been guzzling paper. This model is not environmentally sustainable. (Para 30) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Election

Failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to an election petition. Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Maharashtra Case - Governor's decision for floor test wrong, but Uddhav Govt can't be restored as he resigned. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

'Governor can't enter the political arena, floor test not to decide intra-party disputes ': Supreme Court slams Maharashtra Governor. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Shiv Sena Case - Supreme Court refers 'Nabam Rebia' Judgment to larger bench; says it is in conflict with 'Kihoto Hollohan’ Judgment. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Shiv Sena Case | Speaker's decision recognising Eknath Shinde as leader & Gogawale as whip illegal; only political party can appoint whip & leader. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Test of legislative majority futile to decide who is 'real' Shiv Sena; ECI's recognition will apply prospectively. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Election petition liable to be dismissed on showing no cause of action; vague allegations not material facts. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Electricity

'Governor cannot stultify a government like this": Supreme Court rebukes Delhi LG for delaying appointment of DERC chairperson. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Electricity dues of previous occupier can be recovered from subsequent occupier of premises. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

CERC can't go beyond express terms of contract; APTEL can't discover new "change in law" which parties never contemplated. Haryana Power Purchase Centre v. Sasan Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Environmental Law

No mining activity within Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) even if ESZ is more than 1 km from protected forest. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Evidence Law

Forensic / Ballistic Report has not even been put to the accused, from whom the country made pistol was seized, while recording his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., therefore, in any event, it would have to be eschewed from consideration. (Para 32) Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Chance Witness - Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Delayed Disclosure - a mere chance witness, whose presence at the spot, at that hour, is not satisfactorily explained therefore, bearing in mind that he kept silent for unusually long i.e. for more than three and a half months, his testimony is not worthy of any credit. The courts below erred by placing reliance on his testimony. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Testimony of witnesses who made a delayed disclosure of the incriminating circumstances of which he was aware much earlier - If a witness professes to know about a gravely incriminating circumstance against a person accused of the offence of murder and the witness keeps silent for over two months regarding the said incriminating circumstance against the accused, his statement relating to the incriminating circumstance, in the absence of any cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Circumstantial Evidence - Failure to render plausible explanation - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, false explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to a definite conclusion with regard to the guilt of the accused. (Para 83) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Accused were not traceable - Once the body was found and police entered the scene, after the first information report, even if the accused had been away and innocent, his instinct of self-preservation would have got the better of him to evade arrest till better counsel prevailed upon him to surrender. Such conduct by itself is not reflective of a guilty mind. (Para 70) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Admissibility of the FSL Report - Handwriting Expert Opinion - though it is not impermissible to base a finding with regard to authorship of a document solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but, as a rule of prudence, because of imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility, such opinion has to be relied with caution and may be accepted if, on its own assessment, the Court is satisfied that the internal and external evidence relating to the document in question supports the opinion of the expert and it is safe to accept his opinion. (Para 65) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Handwriting Expert Opinion - Suicide Letter - Taking into account that the accused has denied the incriminating circumstance of writing the suicide letter and no internal or external evidence, save the expert report, supports the writing of suicide letter by the accused, though the expert evidence was admissible as an opinion on the writing in the suicide letter but, on overall assessment of the evidence led by the prosecution, solely on its basis, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the suicide letter retrieved from the trouser of the deceased was written by the accused. (Para 69) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Circumstantial Evidence - In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This heavy burden has to be discharged by the prosecution. It becomes even more difficult in a case of circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the nature of circumstantial evidence is weak. In order to establish a charge of guilt on the accused, the chain of evidence must be completed and the chain must point out to one and only one conclusion, which is that it is only the accused who have committed the crime and none else. We are afraid the prosecution has not been able to discharge this burden. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Circumstantial Evidence - In a case where there is no direct eye witness to the crime, the prosecution has to build its case on the circumstantial evidence. It is a very heavy burden cast on the prosecution. The chain of circumstances collected by the prosecution must complete the chain, which should point to only one conclusion which is that it is the accused who had committed the crime, and none else. Each evidence which completes the chain of evidences must stand on firm grounds. In our considered opinion, the evidence placed by the prosecution in this case does not pass muster the standard required in a case of circumstantial evidence. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Examination

Directions interfering with the examination process by way of calling for answer-sheets, recording a finding on non- evaluation or mandating the process of re-evaluation cannot be issued by courts. Chief General Manager, BSNL v. M.J. Paul, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 414

Police SI selection - Supreme Court finds fault with HC for not considering candidates' objections to questions. Sachit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Objections to Questions in Competitive Examination – Appeals by unsuccessful candidates appearing for limited competitive examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for appointment to the post of police subinspector – Jharkhand High Court refused to consider objections raised by petitioners on merits on the ground that they were filed beyond the stipulated period for filing objections – Held, high court erred in refusing to consider the petitioners’ objections on merits and took a too technical view – Further held, even if the objections had been raised by the petitioners beyond the prescribed period of submitting them, but before the declaration of results, the high court ought to have considered the objections on their merits –Appeals allowed in part – Appeals remanded to high court to be considered afresh. Sachit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 382

EWS Quota

Supreme Court dismisses review petitions filed against judgment upholding EWS Quota. Society for the Rights of Backward Communities v. Janhit Abhiyan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 441

Family Law

How to decide if a marriage has irretrievably broken down? The Supreme Court indicates factors. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Parties cannot directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Waiting period for mutual consent divorce as per S.13b(2) of Hindu Marriage Act can be waived invoking Article 142. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

'Irretrievable breakdown of marriage' a ground to dissolve marriage invoking Article 142 powers. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage a ground of dissolve marriage invoking powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India - This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. (Para 42(iii)) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Fault theory can be diluted by this Court to do ‘complete justice’ in a particular case, without breaching the self-imposed restraint applicable when this Court exercises power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Apportioning blame and greater fault may not be the rule to resolve and adjudicate the dispute in rare and exceptional matrimonial cases - It would be in the best interest of all, including the individuals involved, to give legality, in the form of formal divorce, to a dead marriage, otherwise the litigation(s), resultant sufferance, misery and torment shall continue. (Para 29) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Illustrative list of factors which are to be considered while granting divorce on this ground. (Para 33) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Frivolous Litigations

Just as bad coins drive out good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous, irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to follow such course. (Para 20) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

The matter should be viewed more seriously when people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego. (Para 20) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Supreme Court reprimands HUDA Authority for filing frivolous appeal; imposes cost of Rs. 1 Lakh. Haryana Urban Development Authority v Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429

For filing the present frivolous appeal, in our opinion, the Appellants deserve to be burdened with heavy cost. This Court had deprecated the conduct of the litigants in flooding this Court with frivolous litigations, which are choking the dockets as a result of which the matters, which require consideration are delayed. On merits also a similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 207. In the aforesaid case, the plot was allotted in the same Sector-14 (Part), Hissar. Additional price was demanded for the same as is projected in the case in hand. Though the High Court had not granted relief to the allotee, therein however this Court accepted the plea and quashed the demand of additional price from the allottee, interpreting the same condition in the letter of allotment as is in the case in hand. (Para 15 - 17) Haryana Urban Development Authority v Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429

In the case in hand, the civil suit was filed on 1.10.2003 by the Respondent challenging the demand of additional price. Judgment of this Court in Sanjay Gera’s case was delivered on 22.02.2005. Despite this fact being in knowledge of the Appellants, the suit was contested and the same was decreed on 19.08.2008. The matter did not end here, appeal was preferred by the appellant before the First Appellate Court and on failure even before the High Court and thereafter before this Court. For the aforesaid reasons and wasting the time of the Courts at different levels, we deem it appropriate to burden the Appellants with a cost of ₹1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. In addition, the Respondent having been dragged in unnecessary litigation upto this Court deserves to be awarded cost of ₹50,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the Appellants from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for filing appeal at different levels despite being covered by judgment of this Court. (Para 20 - 22) Haryana Urban Development Authority v Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429

The additional amount sought to be recovered from the Respondent was ₹26,880/- to which there was no justification even at the stage of issuance of notice. The suit was decreed on 19.08.2008. The amount spent on litigation would be much more. It is because of impersonal and irresponsible attitude of the officers, who want to put everything to Court and shirk to take decisions. However, still the Appellants had not only filed appeals, resulting in 2 addition to the pendency of cases and also must have spent huge amounts on litigation in the form of fee of the counsels and allied expenses. Besides that, a number of officer(s)/official(s) must have visited the counsel engaged either at Chandigarh, when the matter was taken up in the High Court and thereafter to this Court, when the order was challenged before this Court. Even that amount also needs to be calculated and recovered from the guilty officers who, despite there being judgment of this Court, dealing with the same issue, opined the case to be fit for filing appeals. (Para 23, 24) Haryana Urban Development Authority v Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429

Hate Speech

Supreme Court directs all States/UTs to register suo motu FIRs in offences such as Section 153A, 153B, 295A and 506 of IPC etc, without any complaint being filed - Action be taken irrespective of the religion of the maker of the speech, so that the secular character of Bharat as envisaged by the Preamble is preserved. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 405

Insolvency

Supertech Insolvency: Supreme Court approves 'project wise resolution' plan. Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Arora, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 436

IBC - No modified resolution plan can be directly placed before NCLT without being finally approved by the CoC. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

IBC - Principle of commercial wisdom not validate a decision taken by CoC in contravention of law. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

IBC - Ineligibility of resolution applicant as per S.164(2)(b) Companies Act can't be presumed unless competent authority declares disqualification. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insurance

Insurance company must give cogent reasons for not accepting the surveyor's report. (Para 17) National Insurance Company Ltd.v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Wherever an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview of such clause. In case of ambiguity, the contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of the insured. (Para 14) National Insurance Company Ltd.v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Interpretation of Statutes

For a subsequent order / provision / amendment passed to be considered a clarification to the original provision, it must not expand or alter the scope of the original provision and that the original must be sufficiently vague or ambiguous so as to require such clarification. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

While it was well established that a clarification or an explanation to clear any ambiguity or correct any glaring omissions in a statute would be applicable retrospectively, it had to consider the question of how such a clarification/ explanation to a statute could be identified and distinguished from a substantive amendment to a statute. A clarification must not have the effect of saddling any party with an unanticipated burden or withdrawing from any party an anticipated benefit. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Interpretation of Statues - Legal Principles - i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted. ii) In order for a subsequent order / provision / amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively. iii) An explanation / clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision. iv) Merely because a provision is described as a clarification / explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Nycil Prickly Heat Powder being a medicated powder is to be classified under Entry 127 of First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“KGST Act”) which is a specific entry in fiscal statute, rather than under Entry 79 of the KGST Act which is a general entry - the salutary rule for interpreting fiscal legislation is that words used in the statute must be given their plain meaning. Heinz India Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 411

Interim Relief

Even if final determination of the question of maintainability (in case the constitutional validity of the impugned provision is to be decided) may depend upon the decision of Larger Bench, the supplemental proceedings in the present suit, particularly those relating to the prayer of interim relief, cannot be put on hold. (Para 18) State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Judgment

Practice and Procedure - If the judgment is not delivered within 6 months after reserving it, then it should be assigned to another bench for fresh hearing, and not to the same bench. Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Judicial Service

The Supreme Court delivered split judgment in a matter pertaining to Rajasthan High Court denying appointment of applicants to the post of Civil Judge on the ground that they had submitted the category certificate beyond the cut-off date. The Bench expressed a divergent view on the issue. Justice Rastogi quashed the order of the Rajasthan High Court and allowed the appeal. He was of the opinion that to do complete justice, Article 142 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked to direct the respondents to consider each of the appellants for appointment who could not be adjusted against the advertised vacancies. However, Justice Trivedi concluded that the appellants who are the defaulters could not be given preferential treatment by accepting the certificates produced by them as valid, though the same were obtained by them after the last date for the submission of applications fixed in the advertisement. Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 460

Adverse observations against Judicial Officers - Orders making adverse observations with regard to the manner in which a judicial officer has exercised discretion in any matter should not be made without opportunity to the person concerned whose career and esteem will be affected. Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 458

District judiciary should not be called 'subordinate judiciary'. Judges are not employees of state. District judiciary's independence part of basic structure. Increase in salary of high court judges must reflect in same proportion to district judges. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452

The inability of a judicial officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of the career need not be viewed seriously. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452

The increment which becomes due to the judicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally included in the calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452

The Supreme Court provided a timeline for the Center and the States to pay retired judicial officers pension as per the enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Supreme Court stays promotion of Judicial Officers as District Judges in Gujarat. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Can't direct that 50% hc judges should be from district judiciary; but at least 1/3rd should be from judicial services. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Supreme Court refuses to order that 50% of High Court judges should be recruited from judicial services - Court says that ratio between judges from district judiciary and from bar be maintained at least as 1:3 - Issues directions to speed up the filling up of vacancies from judicial quota - the tenure of the Service Judges in the High Court, most of the times, is only few years - So, High Courts requested to take immediate steps in recommending the names for elevation from the service cadre prior to the occurrence of such vacancies, so that there is no delay in elevation of the Judges from the service cadre. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Land Law

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

Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, there is no specific enactment and/or Act to deal with land grabbing cases and the Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cells have been formed by G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 to exclusively deal with the land grabbing cases. In absence of any guidelines and/or definition as to which cases can be said to be land grabbing cases, it gives unfettered and unguided and arbitrary powers to the police to treat any land case as a land grabbing case which will be investigated by the Land Grabbing Special Cell. Even a dispute between two private persons which may be under the Specific Relief Act and/or Transfer of Property Act may be considered as a land grabbing case. In absence of any specific guideline and/or definition of “land grabbing cases,” such powers can be abused or misused and such powers can be said to be exercised arbitrarily. Therefore, the High Court has rightly set aside G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 with liberty to the State Government to bring any appropriate legislation. (Para 6) Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thamaraiselvam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 400

If the State Government is so conscious and/or interested in taking action against land grabbers, it will be open for the State Government to bring an appropriate legislation with the clear definition of “land grabber” and “land grabbing” or better legislations with a clear definition of “land grabbing”,” land grabber” and “land grabbing cases” and the present order shall not come in their way to enact such legislation and/or better legislations. (Para 7) Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thamaraiselvam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Money Laundering

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

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

'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

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

Precedent

'Not everything said in a judgment constitutes a precedent': Supreme Court explains distinction between obiter dicta & ratio decidendi. Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi - “The inversion test” to identify what is ratio decidendi in a judgment - To test whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed, i.e. to remove from the text of the judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case would still have been the same even without examining the proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case - It is not the findings of material facts, direct and inferential, but the statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts, which is the vital element in the decision and operates as a precedent. Even the conclusion does not operate as a precedent, albeit operates as res judicata. Thus, it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided and, for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the obiter dicta. Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Premature Release

Court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics - the positive recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the accused, has been rejected by the State on the ground that the accused had administered poison to murder her two sons to continue her illicit relationship without any hinderance, which act was cruel and brutal in nature - the accused never tried to murder her sons with a view to continue her illicit relationship - there is no valid reason / justifiable ground for the State not accepting the recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the accused - We are not oblivious to the crime but we are equally not oblivious to the fact that the mother has already suffered at the cruel hands of fate. (Para 16 - 19) Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Property

Dispute between defendants regarding validity of sale deed can’t be considered in suit for possession instituted by plaintiff. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Recruitment

Recruitment Rules - the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule. In the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List, is left to the wisdom of the State. However, the State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review. State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472

Recusal

The request of recusal is nothing but an attempt to indulge in Forum Shopping and Bench Hunting and to avoid the Bench with mala fide intention. Earlier, merely because some proceedings might have been heard by one of us before the High Court in connection with the present matter and/or proceedings and some observations might have been made against the petitioner on the delaying tactics, cannot be a ground to accede to the request made by the petitioner. As the prayer lacks bona fide and seems to have been made with mala fide intention to avoid the Bench for no valid reason, the prayer for recusal is rejected. (Para 5) Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 420

Rent

Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act - Late payment of rent despite direction of revenue court valid ground for eviction. K. Chinnammal v. L.R. Eknath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437

Review

Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging rule permitting disposal of review petitions without oral arguments. P.T. Mohan v. Registrar Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 379

Sales Tax

Prickly heat powder is not a ‘medicine’ for the purpose of sales tax in Kerala & Tamil Nadu - Prickly heat powders fall under the category of ‘medicated talcum powder’ and not ‘medicine’ for the purpose of sales tax under Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“KGST Act”). Whereas, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (“TNGST Act”), prickly heat powder would be taxed as a cosmetic. Heinz India Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 411

SARFAESI Act

SARFAESI auction can't be stayed just because the sale agreement holder offered to pay dues, when the borrower hasn't invoked S.13(8). G. Vikram Kumar v State Bank of Hyderabad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Be vigilant before invoking stringent laws like SC-ST Act : Supreme Court 'reminds' police officers. Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Senior Advocate Designation

Senior Advocate Designation – Guidelines modified - Process should be done at least once a year - Reduces points assigned for publication; expands its scope to include teaching assignments and guest lectures - No strict age bar of 45 years for senior designation, but only exceptional advocates be designated below this age - Legal Profession no longer a family profession; newcomers must be encouraged - Role played by lawyers in cases to be assessed than counting mere appearances. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Supreme Court modifies guidelines for senior advocate designations; says process should be done at least once a year. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Legal profession is no longer a family profession; newcomers must be encouraged’: Supreme Court encourages diversity in senior designations. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425

No strict age bar of 45 years for senior designation, but only exceptional advocates be designated below this age. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Senior Advocate Designation: Supreme Court reduces points assigned for publication; expands its scope to include teaching assignments and guest lectures. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Senior Advocate Designation: Supreme Court says role played by lawyers in cases to be assessed than counting mere appearances. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Service Law

Dismissed from Service - Matter stood closed in the year 2004 - The review petition was also dismissed - The petitioner has not filed a curative petition but has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India claiming that injustice has been done to him and the matter should be reopened - No legal system can have a scenario where a person keeps on raking up the issue again and again once it is resolved at highest level. This is complete wastage of judicial time. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, though we limit the amount of costs considering the petitioner is a dismissed person, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund to be utilized for the SCBA library. K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Inquiry proceedings civil servant can be done away with in national security interest. Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 432

Pension cannot be denied to employee citing wrongful deductions made towards the CPF scheme. Retired employees cannot be made to suffer due to mistakes committed by their employers. Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 419

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers - the Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Tripura High Court which directed the State Government to raise the retirement age of Anganwadi workers from 60 years to 65 years. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – the Supreme Court found fault with the High Court for issuing a mandamus to the State Government to change its policy regarding the retirement age of workers. The High Court reasoned that since 90% of expenses of the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme - under which the Anganwadi workers are engaged- are borne by the Central Government, there will not be a fundamental increase in the burden of the State if their retirement age is increased. Held, that this line of reasoning adopted by the High Court is unacceptable. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – Looking to the very nature of the work and the structure of services, when the state government is the primary authority to decide the service conditions, no mandamus can be issued to the state government to change its policy, regardless of the proportion of the share of the central government in the expenditure burden. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – Supporting the High Court judgment, the amicus curiae contended that the Court can always issue relevant directions to ensure that fundamental rights and protections available to the citizens are not violated. The amicus also pointed out the retirement age of Anganwadi Workers was 65 years in many states and stressed that parity in employment is a reasonable expectation. Held, that as regards the scheme in question, it is clear that even while certain propositions/expectations had been laid by the central government, the existing statutory norms do not provide for uniform age limit for retirement of AWs/AHs; and it is for the state government to decide as regards the service conditions, including the age of discharge. (Para 10)

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – by enhancing the age of retirement, the requirement of substitute is delayed, remains bereft of logic, and that in any case, that does not provide a legal ground to force the state government to alter its policy only because such expectations are stated by the central government or because some other states have provided for such an age of discharge. (Para 11) State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – the decision cited by the learned counsel dealing with different eventualities and different principles do not provide any basis for issuance of a mandamus to the state government to change its policy, particularly when the policy is otherwise not shown to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality; rather the state is categorical in its submission that by way of this policy, the age of discharge of AWs/AHs is placed at par with those of the other employees of the state government and Public Sectors Undertakings in the state. (Para 11) State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Supreme Court grants notional seniority to private secretaries at Delhi High Court whose marks increased post re-evaluation of answer sheets. Sunil v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 374

Seniority – Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets - Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list. Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant. (Para 7) Sunil v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 374

Sexual Harassment

Ensure ICCs are constituted under POSH Act : Supreme Court to all Govts, Statutory Professional Bodies, Universities etc. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

'Serious lapses in POSH Act enforcement': Supreme Court issues directions to strengthen law protecting women from Sexual Harassment at workplace. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Tax

No service tax applicable on user development fee collected from passengers by Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad international airports. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Thief can't be assessed as 'owner' of stolen property under Section 69A Income Tax Act. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act - Carrier of Goods not an ‘Owner’; Bitumen not a ‘valuable article’ under S. 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Credit note issued by automobile manufacturer to dealer, in consideration of replacement of defective part, attracts Sales Tax. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SPL), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Can tax exemption be claimed based on doctrine of legitimate expectation? The Supreme Court delivers a split verdict. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428

In 'Works Contract', assessee liable to pay service tax on service element & sales tax on goods transferred. CC and CE and ST, Noida v. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 393

University

The subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 cannot be declared as a clarification and therefore be made applicable retrospectively. The said order has substantively modified the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 to the extent of stating that teachers who had already got the benefit of advance increments for having a Ph.D. degree, would not be eligible for advance increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade. The law provides that a clarification must not have the effect of saddling any party with an unanticipated burden or withdrawing from any party an anticipated benefit. However, the Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 has restricted the eligibility of lecturers for advance increments at the time of placement in the selection grade, only to those who do not have a Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment and subsequently acquire the same. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Merely because the subsequent Government Order has been described as a clarification / explanation or is said to have been issued following a clarification that was sought in that regard, the Court is not bound to accept that the said order is only clarificatory in nature. On an analysis of the true nature and purport of the subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001, it is not merely clarificatory, but is a substantial amendment which seeks to withdraw the benefit of two advance increments in favour of a certain category of lecturers. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Wakf

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

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

Writ Petition

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

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994; Section 22A - “User development fee” (UDF) levied and collected by the airport operation, maintenance, and development entities from passengers, is a statutory levy, and thus, it is not subjected to levy of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. There is a distinction between the charges, fee and rent collected under Section 22 of the AAI Act and the UDF levied and collected under Section 22A of the AAI Act, the UDF is in the form of a ‘tax or cess’ collected for financing the cost of future projects. There was no consideration for the services provided by the assessee-entities to the customer, visitors, passengers, vendors, etc. As a part of the Union’s economic policies, the upgradation and renovation of airports are funded through UDF, which is a statutory levy, the fact that the UDF amount is not deposited in a government treasury, per se, does not make it any less a statutory levy or compulsory exaction. Nor does its discretionary nature render it any less a statutory levy. Merely because the funds are kept in an escrow account, and their utilization is monitored separately, it does not undermine the public nature of the funds in any manner. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 (6) - Post amendment in 2015, the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is confined to examining whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties – “nothing more, nothing less”. Under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, referral court is duty bound to consider the dispute/issue with respect to the existence of an Arbitration Agreement. (Para 5.2) Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 (6) - The ‘pre-referral’ jurisdiction of Court under Section 11 (6) consists of two inquiries, (i) existence and validity of arbitration agreement; and (ii) non-arbitrability of dispute. The primary inquiry is about the existence and the validity of an arbitration agreement, which also includes an inquiry as to the parties to the agreement and the applicant’s privity to the said agreement. The said matter requires a thorough examination by the referral court. The Secondary inquiry that may arise at the reference stage itself is with respect to the non-arbitrability of the dispute. Both are different and distinct. So far as the first issue with respect to the existence and the validity of an arbitration agreement is concerned, as the same goes to the root of the matter, the same has to be to conclusively decided by the referral court at the referral stage itself. With respect to non-arbitrability of the dispute, the court at pre-referral stage may prima facie examine the arbitrability of claims. The review at the reference stage is done to sideline the cases where litigation must stop at the first stage. (Para 5.3) Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 (6) - When the issue of ‘existence and validity of an arbitration agreement’ is raised at pre-referral stage, then the Court is duty bound to conclusively decide the issue. If the issue regarding ‘existence and validity of an arbitration agreement’ is left to the Arbitral Tribunal, then it will be contrary to Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act. This is to protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate in absence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Para 5.3) Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - the cause of action to appoint an arbitrator would commence from the “Breaking Point” at which any reasonable party would abandon efforts for at arriving at a settlement and contemplate referral of the dispute for arbitration. “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose for the purpose of limitation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Entire history of the negotiation between the parties must be specifically pleaded and placed on record, in order to facilitate the Court to find out what was the “Breaking Point” for the purpose of limitation computation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - “Cause of action” to mean material facts that are necessary to be proved by the plaintiff to succeed in a suit; and it plays a necessary role in computation of limitation period for bringing an action. If a party simply delays sending a notice seeking reference under the Act 1996 because they are unclear of when the cause of action arose, the claim can become time-barred even before the party realises the same. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation - the limitation period of three years for filing such application would commence from the date when the cause of action arose. Subsequent negotiations between the parties, which take place after the cause of action has arisen, will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation computation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Negotiations may continue even for a period of ten years or twenty years after the cause of action had arisen. Mere negotiations will not postpone the “cause of action” for the purpose of limitation. The Legislature has prescribed a limit of three years for the enforcement of a claim and this statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Limitation Act, 1963; Article 137 - the Arbitration Act does not prescribe any time period for filing an application under Section 11(6) for appointment of Arbitrator. Thus, the limitation of three years provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to such proceedings. The time limit of three years would commence from the period when the right to apply accrues. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963; Article 137 - If an infringement of a right happens at a particular time, the whole cause of action will be said to have arisen then and there. In such a case, it is not open to a party to sit tight and not to file an application for settlement of dispute of his right, which had been infringed, within the time provided by the Limitation Act, and, allow his right to be extinguished by lapse of time, and thereafter, to wait for another cause of action and then file an application under Section 11 of the Act 1996 for establishment of his right which was not then alive, and, which had been long extinguished because, in such a case, such an application would mean an application for revival of a right, which had long been extinguished under the Act 1963 and is, therefore, dead for all purposes. Such proceedings would not be maintainable and would obviously be met by the plea of limitation under Article 137 of the Act 1963. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6), 11 (6A), 21 - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Where the notice invoking arbitration is issued prior to the coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act, i.e., prior to 23.10.2015, and the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, is made post the enforcement of the Amendment Act, the 2015 Amendment Act shall not be applicable. In Parmar Construction (2019) and Pradeep Vinod Construction (2020), the Supreme Court had specifically held that where the request to refer the dispute to arbitration was made before the 2015 Amendment Act came into effect, the unamended A&C Act shall be applicable for appointment of arbitrator. In BCCI (2018), the Apex Court has ruled the 2015 Amendment Act, 2015 to be prospective in nature only so far as the proceedings under Sections 34 & 36 of the Act are concerned. Further, the application under Section 11(6) was not in issue before the court. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - the Arbitrator appointed by Union, who is an employee of the Union, is ineligible to be appointed as the Arbitrator as per Para 1 of Schedule VII read with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - An award could be said to be suffering from “patent illegality” only if it is an illegality apparent on the face of the award and not to be searched out by way of re-appreciation of evidence - The narrow scope of “patent illegality” cannot be breached by mere use of different expressions which nevertheless refer only to “error” and not to “patent illegality - if an Arbitrator construes the term of contract in a reasonable manner, the award cannot be set aside with reference to the deduction drawn from construction - The possibility of interference would arise only if the construction of the Arbitrator is such which could not be made by any fair minded and reasonable person. (Para 18, 25, 36) Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The Court cannot, after setting aside the award, proceed to grant further relief by modifying the award. It must leave the parties to work out their remedies in a given case even where it justifiably interferes with the award. (Para 27) Indian Oil Corporation v. Sathyanarayana Service Station, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - View taken by the arbitrator in the facts, can be characterised as being perverse. It is undoubtedly a plausible view. It closes the door for the court to intervene. The finding of the arbitrator cannot be described as one betraying “a patent illegality". (Para 22) Indian Oil Corporation v. Sathyanarayana Service Station, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 - the reliefs claimed in the suit fell outside the arbitration clause contained in the agreement executed between the parties. The court reckoned that the issue raised in the civil suit involved multiple transactions, involving different contracting parties and different agreements, all of which, except for one, did not contain an arbitration clause. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court where it had upheld the rejection of an application filed under Section 8 of the Act in a commercial civil suit, noting that the cause of action of the suit went beyond the transaction containing the arbitration agreement. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 - While noting that the reliefs claimed in the suit involved subsequent purchasers of the suit property, which were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, held that, the case did not involve any “doubt” about the non-existence of arbitration agreement in relation to the dispute in question. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384

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

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - A plaint which falls within the teeth of the conditions laid down under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC is liable to be rejected at the threshold for which the plaint allegations alone are required to be considered and nothing else. (Para 12) ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - While deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint only are required to be considered and not the averments in the written statement - Plaint is ought to be rejected when it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting. (Para 5-8) Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A - An inter-se dispute on the validity of the sale deed executed between the defendants in respect of the suit land, cannot be considered in the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in its favour, as it would amount to adjudication of a right or a claim by way of counter-claim by one defendant against his co-defendant, which cannot be permitted by virtue of Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6–A (4) - A counter-claim is a virtually a plaint and an independent suit. (Para 12) ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 102 - the Executing Court would have to determine upon evidence whether the transfer of immovable property which was made post dismissal of suit, was made after institution of appeal/further litigation or not, in order to attract the principle of lis pendens. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 10 - Stay of Suit - By virtue of Section 10 CPC, a Court is prohibited from proceeding with trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit, of course, subject to other conditions mentioned therein. The object of the prohibition contained in Section 10 CPC is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and to avoid inconsistent findings. However, this rule of procedure is held not affecting the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and deal with the latter suit and does not create a bar to the institution of the suit. The Courts have also consistently held that Section 10 CPC does not create a bar to the passing of interlocutory orders including those of injunction. (Para 17) State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 - Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree - Section 47 of CPC confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Executing Court to prevent unnecessary litigation and to achieve speedy disposal of the questions arising in relation to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Difference in the power of Police to register and investigate an FIR under Section 154(1) read with 157 of the Code, and the Magistrate’s direction to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code. Power of the Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) in contrast with post-cognizance stage power under Section 202 of the Code – Explained. (Para 23 -38) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Inherent power of the High Court under the Code to quash the FIR – Explained. (Para 19-22) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Principles in respect of the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Explained. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(3) read with Section 158 does not permit the Secretary (Home) to order for further investigation or reinvestigation by another agency - The order passed by the Secretary (Home) transferring the investigation / ordering further investigation by another agency and that too, on the basis of the application / complaint submitted by mother of the accused is unknown to law - In any case, as it is a case of reinvestigation, the same is not permissible and that too by another agency without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate even while exercising the powers under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. (Para 7.1, 7.3) Bohatie Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The power under the Code to investigate generally consists of following steps: (a) proceeding to the spot; (b) ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case; (c) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender; (d) collection of evidence relating to commission of offence, which may consist of examination of various persons, including the person accused, and reduction of the statement into writing if the officer thinks fit; (e) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for investigation and to be produced for trial; and (f) formation of opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps by filing a chargesheet under Section 173. (Para 12) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 102 - Company's bank account cannot be frozen for criminal investigation against an unrelated party. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Registration of an FIR - Mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Code – Explained. (Para 14-18) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 and 157 - there is a distinction between Section 154 and 157 as the latter provision postulates a higher requirement than under Section 154 of the Code. Under Section 157(1) of the Code, a Police officer can foreclose the investigation if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate. The requirement of Section 157(1) for the Police officer to start investigation is that he has “reason to suspect the commission of an offence”. Therefore, the Police officer is not liable to launch investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. When the Police officer forecloses investigation in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1), he must submit a report to the Magistrate. Here, the Magistrate can direct the Police to investigate, or if he thinks fit, hold an inquiry. Where a Police officer, in a given case, proceeds to investigate the matter, then he files the final report under Section 173 of the Code. The noticeable feature of the scheme is that the Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of investigation, but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the Police how the investigation should be conducted. (Para 16) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - Proposed accused has right to be heard in revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against dismissal of petition under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Default Bail - If NIA as well as the State investigating agency they want to seek extension of time for investigation, they must be careful that such extension is not prayed for at the last moment - The right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application or subsequent filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the court. However, where the accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet, or a report seeking extension of time is preferred before the Magistrate or any other competent court, the right to default bail would be extinguished. The court would be at liberty to take cognizance of the case or grant further time for completion of the investigation, as the case may be, though the accused may still be released on bail under other provisions of the CrPC.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Filing of a chargesheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of the CrPC and that an accused cannot claim any indefeasible right of being released on statutory / default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of the statutory time period to file the chargesheet - Grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC - Once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order. (Para 44, 63) Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2), 193 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Section 16 - Error on the part of the investigating agency in filing chargesheet first before the Court of Magistrate has nothing to do with the right of the accused to seek statutory / default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The committal proceedings are not warranted, when it comes to prosecution under the UAPA by the NIA by virtue of Section 16 of the NIA Act. This is because the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions. By virtue of Section 16 of the NIA Act, the Court need not follow the requirements of Section 193 of the CrPC. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2), Section 173 - We find no merit in the principal argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants that a chargesheet filed without sanction is an incomplete chargesheet which could be termed as not in consonance with sub section (5) of Section 173 of the CrPC - Once a final report has been filed with all the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely, the investigation shall be deemed to have been completed - Once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173 (8) - District Police Chief cannot order further investigation without permission from magistrate or higher court - Power to order further investigation rests with either with the concerned magistrate or with a higher court and not with an investigating agency. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 311A – Evidence Act, 1872; Section 73 - Specimen Signatures and Handwriting Samples - “to be a witness against himself” - Since specimen signatures and handwriting samples are not incriminating by themselves as they are to be used for the purpose of identification of the handwriting on a material with which the investigators are already acquainted with, compulsorily obtaining such specimens would not infringe the rule against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. (Para 53, 57) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Power to examine the accused - (i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction; (ii) The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence; (iii) The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused; (iv) The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused; (v) If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident; (vi) In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him; and (vii) In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the concerned accused under Section 313 of CrPC. (viii) While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered. (Para 16) Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 – Power to examine the accused - While recording the statement under Section 313 of CrPC in cases involving a large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial Officers should take benefit of Section 313 (5) of CrPC, which will ensure that the chances of committing errors and omissions are minimized. Section 313(5) CrPC says that the Court may take help of the Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section. (Para 21) Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - the Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach. (Para 33) Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - to suspend the substantive order of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable - the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. (Para 33) Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41, 154 - To strike a balance, distinction is drawn between power of arrest of an accused person under Section 41 and registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code. While registration of an FIR is mandatory, the arrest of the accused on registration of the FIR is not. FIR is registered on the basis of information without any qualification like credible, reasonable or true information. Reasonableness or credibility of information is not a condition precedent for registration of the FIR. However, for making arrest in terms of Section 41(1)(b) or (g), the legal requirements and mandate is reflected in the expression ‘reasonable complaint’ or ‘credible information’. (Para 15) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant / rejection of bail / anticipatory bail. We do not appreciate such a lengthy elaboration of evidence at this stage - In the matters pertaining to liberty of citizens, the Court should act promptly - An inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate. Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - though usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section 439 of the Code; however, the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes. (Para 13) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint. (Para 16) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. (Para 36) Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Companies Act, 2013 - Upholds the constitutionality of Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, which excludes workers dues from priority payment in the event of liquidation of a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - The object and purpose of amending the Companies Act 2013 and to exclude Sections 326 and 327 in the event of liquidation of a company under IBC seem to be that there may not be two different provisions in respect to the winding up/ liquidation of a company. Therefore, in view of the enactment of the IBC, it was necessary to exclude the applicability of Section 326 and 327 of the 2013 Act, which cannot be said to be arbitrary, as contended on behalf of the petitioners. (Para 6) Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Companies Act, 2013; Section 140(5) - Challenge to the constitutional validity of section 140(5) fails - Section 140(5) is neither discriminatory, arbitrary and/or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as alleged - The application/proceedings under section 140(5) of the Act, 2013 is held to be maintainable even after the resignation of the concerned auditors. (Para 16) Union of India v. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 388

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - If a democratically elected government is not given the power to control the officers, the principle of triple chain of accountability will be redundant. If the officers stop reporting to the Ministers or do not abide by their directions, the principle of collective responsibility is affected. If "services" are excluded from legislative and executive domain, the Ministers would be excluded from controlling the civil servants who are to implement the executive decisions. if the officers feel they are insulated from the control of the government, it will dilute accountability and affect governance. Thus, in a democratic form of govt, real power of administration must rest on the elected arm of the government. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - Legislative structure of Article 239AA excludes Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II to Schedule VII (public order, police and land) from the power of the Delhi legislative assembly. The Union of India has executive power only over these three entries.Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - the legislative assembly of Delhi embodies the principle of representative democracy, the Delhi assembly is given powers to legislate to represent the will of the people. Thus, Article 239AA of the Constitution must be interpreted in a manner to further the interest of representative democracy. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services in the National Capital, excluding matters relating to public order, police and land. The Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decision of Delhi government over services, apart from public order, police and land. If services are excluded from its legislative and executive domain, the Ministers and the Executive who are charged with formulating policies in the territory of NCTD would be excluded from controlling the civil service officers who implement such executive decisions. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 311 (2) (c) Second Proviso - Inquiry proceedings of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union Government or the State Government can be done away with if the President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry. Once it is obvious that circumstances based on materials capable of arriving at a satisfaction that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry “in the interest of the security of the State” are available, the decision in holding that it is inexpedient “in the interest of the security of the State” to hold an inquiry warrants no further scrutiny. The Court cannot, in such circumstances, judge on the expedience or inexpediency to dispense with the inquiry as it was arrived at based on the subjective satisfaction of the President based on materials. (Para 24) Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 432

Constitution of India, 1950 – Floor Test - the decision to call for a floor test should be based on objective material and reasons which are relevant and germane to the exercise of discretion, and not extraneous to it. The Governor should not use their discretionary power to destabilise or displace democratically elected governments. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 – Governor - The discretion vested in the Governor to call for a floor test is not unfettered, and must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. The Governor is a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case, the Governor must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 – Governor - The power of the Governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an extraordinary nature. The exercise of such power has ramifications on parliamentary democracy. Hence, the ambit of the exercise of such power by the Governor must be calibrated to meet the exigencies of situations where the Governor is satisfied on the basis of objective material that there is sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of their extraordinary power. The discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion but one that must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 - In the absence of specific pleadings, a writ court cannot get into the issues of repugnancy or lack of legislative competence. Unless the statutory provision is declared unconstitutional, its implementation cannot be stopped. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Constitution of India, 1950 - It is the "political party" which has the power to appoint a whip and the leader and not the "legislature party". Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – At the highest, the various communications expressed the fact that a faction of MLAs disagreed with some policy decisions of the party. The course of action they wished to adopt in order to air their grievances and redress them was, at the time the floor test was directed to be conducted, uncertain. Whether they would choose to enter deliberations with their colleagues in the House or in the political party, or mobilise the cadres, or resign from the Assembly in protest, or opt to merge with another party, was uncertain. Therefore, the Governor erred in relying upon the resolution signed by a faction of the SSLP (Shiv Sena Legislature Party) MLAs to conclude that Mr. Thackeray had lost the support of the majority of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - Governor cannot enter political arena, floor test not to decide intra-party disputes - The Governor could not have entered the internal party dispute by ordering the floor test, particularly in absence of any "objective material" to dislodge the presumption of confidence of House ingrained in a democratically elected government. The letters by some MLAs (or even by then Leader of Opposition in this case) for a direction to the Chief Minister to prove his majority does not, taken alone, amount to a relevant reason to call for a floor test. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled. They certainly do not empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes. It follows from this that the Governor cannot act upon an inference that he has drawn that a section of the Shiv Sena wished to withdraw their support to the Government on the floor of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - the decision taken by the Governor to call for a floor test based on the rebellion of Eknath Shinde-led faction and to direct then CM Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House, was wrong. The Governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government. The resolution on which the Governor relied did not contain any indication that the MLAs wished to exit from the MVA government. The communication expressing discontent on the part of some MLAs is not sufficient for the Governor to call for a floor test. The Governor ought to apply his mind to the communication (or any other material) before him to assess whether the Government seemed to have lost the confidence of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 - Shiv Sena rift – The Court cannot order the restoration of the Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned without facing a floor test. Since Thackeray voluntarily resigned, the Governor was right in inviting Ekanth Shinde form the government with the support of BJP. Had Mr. Thackeray refrained from resigning from the post of the Chief Minister, this court could have considered the grant of the remedy of reinstating the government headed by him. The Court cannot quash a resignation which was voluntarily tendered. The Governor's earlier decision to order a floor test for the Maha Vikas Aghadi government as well as the Speaker's decision to appoint the whip nominated by Shinde group were incorrect. The correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia is referred to a larger Bench of seven judges. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Constitution of India, 1950 - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the State amendments made to the central law Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to allow the conduct of animal sports like Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing in these respective States. These amendments were passed by the States after the Supreme Court in 2014 banned jallikettu and similar activities in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. These laws cannot be construed as "colourable legislations" and that the State legislature had the legislative power to make these amendments as per Entry 17 to List III of the Seventh Schedule. These amendments do not go contrary to the ratio of the judgment in Nagaraja. These laws cure the defects pointed out by the judgment in Nagaraja. The effect of these laws is to minimise the pain and suffering caused to animals. The amendments, having received the assent of the President, cannot be faulted. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 131 - Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998; Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010; Rule 5 – Constitutional Validity of – Decision of Larger Bench pending - It is the contention of the Union of India and several of the impleaded States that this suit is not maintainable - No doubt, if this Court is required to decide the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions of the Act of 1998, it may be necessary to await the decision of the Larger Bench, but not otherwise. Therefore, at this stage, it would be premature to nonsuit the State of Meghalaya on the ground that this suit is not maintainable or to keep it on hold for all purposes, pending the decision of the Larger Bench. As the State of Meghalaya seeks to assert its right to do business in lotteries under Article 298(b) and its executive power to do so would be subject to parliamentary legislation, viz., the Act of 1998, the grievances raised by it in that context would constitute disputes which fall squarely within the four corners of Article 131 of the Constitution. The position that emerges is that the suit of the present nature and in its present form cannot be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable. (Para 13 - 15) State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 32 - Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005; Rule 5 - Promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the Cadre of District Judge (65% quota) - It is required to be noted that in the present case and as per the merit list produced before the High Court, the candidates, who have secured much more marks are denied promotion and the candidates / Civil Judge (Senior Division), who are having less marks / leas meritorious are promoted. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 secured 135.50 out of 200 marks and the petitioner No. 2 secured 148.50 marks out of 200 against which a candidate having secured 101 marks have got the promotion, which is affecting the principle of “merit-cum-seniority”. Thus, we are more than satisfied that the impugned Select List dated 10.03.2023 issued by the High Court and the subsequent Notification dated 18.04.2023 issued by the State Government granting promotion to the cadre of District Judge are illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules and Regulations and even to the decision of this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra). Therefore, we are more than prima facie satisfied that the same as such are not sustainable. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(e) - Whether a non-Tribal has the right to settle down in a Scheduled Area – Held, every citizen has a right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. However, by making a law, reasonable restrictions can be put on the said Fundamental Right as provided in Clause (5) of Article 19. Therefore, we reject the argument that non-Tribals have no right to settle down in a Scheduled Area. (Para 14) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - the High Court, even while deciding a bail application, has the power to issue other directions in the interest of justice. Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The observations are not to be construed to imply that the High Courts should delve into the efficacy of investigation at the stage of bail, and the present judgment is not to be misread to haul up the investigative agencies/officers in all cases. (Para 15) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 and 227 - The High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers. The powers are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice. (Para 12) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - The Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 cannot be invalidated on the ground that is provisions are at variance from the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Since the Tamil Nadu Act has received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, there is no basis in challenging the Act on the ground that is repugnant to the RFCTLARR Act. Though the State Act did not provide fixed timelines for acquiring land as compared to the new Land Acquisition Act (a central Legislature), the same would not vitiate the State Act. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State Act stood protected after receiving the Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The whole purpose of Article 254(2) was to protect a State enactment when it ran contrary to central legislation. Individual cases involving delay in the acquisition of land under the Highways Act would have to be dealt on merits and that itself would not invalidate the Act. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 299 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 11(6) and 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - Application for appointment of arbitrator - A contract entered into in the name of the President of India, does not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - The parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (Para 41) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 330 and 332 - Delimitation Act, 2002 - As regards providing reservation for all the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative constituencies in a Scheduled Area, the appellant cannot contend that all the constituencies in a Scheduled area should be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Reservation is required to be made in terms of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. These provisions do not provide that all the constituencies in the Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Moreover, the 2002 Act is applicable to the Scheduled Area. Therefore, even the said prayer to issue a writ of mandamus, as regards the reservation for the Scheduled Tribes, deserves to be rejected. (Para 17) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - All the Central and the State laws which are applicable to the entire State will continue to apply to the Scheduled Area unless, in exercise of powers under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, there is a specific notification issued by the Hon’ble Governor making a particular enactment inapplicable, either fully or partially. (Para 13 (i)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - The power of the Hon’ble Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule is restricted to directing that a particular law will not apply to the Scheduled Area or it will apply with such modifications as may be specified in the notification issued under subclause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule or while making Regulations in terms of sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule. (Para 13 (ii)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - The power of the Hon’ble Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule does not supersede the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Fundamental Rights conferred by sub-clause (e) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India on the citizens can also be exercised in relation to the Scheduled Area. (Para 13 (ii) & (iii)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Consumer Law - A pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism. (Para 23) Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 12(1)(c) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 1 Rule 8 - The need for the application of Order I Rule 8 CPC, which speaks of a plaintiff representing the other public as a whole would be required only in a case involving a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act. In other words, it does not have any application when similarly placed complainants jointly make a complaint seeking the very same relief. In such a case, there is no question of Order I Rule 8 CPC being complied with as they do not represent the others, particularly when there is no larger public interest involved. Such complainants seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond. (Para 17) Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(b)(i) – Definition of 'consumer' includes 'consumers' - Joint complaint by multiple consumers need not be filed in representative capacity. Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 13(6) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 1 Rule 8 - When a few consumers who have the same interest seeking the same relief file a joint complaint without any larger public interest involved, it need not be filed in a representative capacity. Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - The 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to approach the forums by providing a very flexible procedure. It is meant to encourage consumerism in the country. Any technical approach in construing the provisions against the consumer would go against the very objective behind the enactment. (Para 15) Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Supreme Court has sentenced a non-resident Indian to six months imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 25 lakhs for contempt of court, for failing to bring back his minor son to India in terms of the orders passed by the top court from time to time and the undertaking given by him before the court to this effect. The acts and omissions of the contemnor, amounted to both civil and criminal contempt, calling for a strict action against him. The power of the court to punish a person for contempt is unrestricted by the Act. Meenal Bhargava v. Naveen Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu); Section 3 - Late payment of rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court, is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction of the cultivating tenant. The 1955 Act confers a privilege on the cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, by which the cultivating tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord. Further, the scope of eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord, is circumscribed by the Act. Thus, the limited grounds for eviction of the cultivating tenant by the landlord under the Act, must not be frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant. K. Chinnammal v. L.R. Eknath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437

Customs Act, 1962 - The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in respect to the issue whether jurisdiction of Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies. While considering the conflicting judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court the bench expressed divergent views. Supporting the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, Justice Krishna Murari opined that in cases of seizures of smuggled goods within the customs areas, Section 123 of the Customs Act would not be applicable and the accused can make application to Settlement Commission under Section 127B. Justice Sanjay Karol opined that the bar in Section 127B precludes filing an application for settlement in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies [for example gold and watches are specified under S.123]. The Division Bench asked the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate order. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Customs Act, 1962 - The Supreme Court has upheld the withdrawal of customs notification which granted customs duty concession to “Rotary Printing Machine” of ‘single width two plate variety’, on the ground of indigenous angle, i.e., availability of the equipment in India. The same cannot be characterized as an irrelevant factor for withdrawing tax concession. The grant of exemption to a class of goods, which are similar to those manufactured within the country, is likely to adversely impact such manufacturers or producers. Thus, the same is a germane and relevant factor for withdrawal of such exemption. The executive has an exclusive domain in fiscal and economic matters, including determining the relevant factors for granting, refusing or amending exemptions. Thus, the role of the court is confined to decide if the executive’s decision is backed by germane and not irrelevant reasons. Union of India v. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Electricity Act 2003; Section 84 (2) - Appointment of the Chairperson - The substantive part of sub-section (2) indicates that the State Government may appoint any person as the Chairperson from “amongst persons who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court”. However, in terms of the proviso, an appointment under the subsection has to be made only after consultation with the Chief Justice “of that High Court”. The expression “of that High Court” makes it abundantly clear that the consultation has to be made with the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the Judge or, as the case may be, the former Judge is drawn. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Electricity Act, 2003 - In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Electric Utilities have been directed in the facts of cases before us to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003 - The implication of the expression “as is where is” basis is that every intending bidder is put on notice that the seller does not undertake responsibility in respect of the property offered for sale with regard to any liability for the payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 178 - In a case where the matter is governed by express terms of the contract, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot, even donning the garb of a regulatory body, go beyond the express terms of the contract. A regulation made under Section 178 of the Act has the effect of interfering and overriding the existing contractual relationship between the regulated entities. However, while it may be open for a regulation to extricate a party from its contractual obligations, the Commission cannot in the course of its adjudicatory power, use the nomenclature regulation to usurp this power to disregard the terms of the contract. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity cannot discover a new ‘change in law’ which the parties have not contemplated as change in law, and the Tribunal cannot rewrite the contract and create a new bargain between the parties. Haryana Power Purchase Centre v. Sasan Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - For an application to be considered as a ‘reconnection’, the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 49 - A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 50 - The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 50 - The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 56 - The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Sections 50 and 181 - The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 101 and 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Section 106 of the Act is an exception to the rule which is Section 101 of the Act, and it comes into play only in a limited sense where the evidence is of a nature which is especially within the knowledge of that person and then the burden of proving that fact shifts upon him that person. The burden of proof is always with the prosecution. It is the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 106 of the Act does not alter that position. It only places burden for disclosure of a fact on the establishment of certain circumstances. (Para 12) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 – Last Seen Theory - What has to be kept in mind is that Section 106 of the Act, only comes into play when the other facts have been established by the prosecution. In this case when the evidence of last seen itself is on a weak footing, considering the long gap of time between last seen by PW­10 and the time of death of the deceased. Section 106 of the Act would not be applicable under the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case. In the present case the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of last seen, only leads upto a point and no further. It fails to link it further to make a complete chain. All we have here is the evidence of last seen, which as we have seen looses much of its weight under the circumstances of the case, due to the long duration of time between last seen and the possible time of death. (Para 13, 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - As far as the recovery is concerned, the recovery is again weak. The so­called alleged place of crime and the recovery of tractor or the place where the tractor was abandoned had already been disclosed by the co­accused by the time the present appellant was arrested. Therefore, making a disclosure about the place of occurrence or the place where the tractor was abandoned is of no consequence. As far as the recovery of watch, currency notes of Rs. 250/­, hair and ‘Parna’ from the residence of the accused are concerned, the currency notes and hair have not been identified with the deceased. What we can call as discovery here under Section 27 of the Act, is the discovery of ‘Parna’ and watch of the deceased. This evidence in itself is not sufficient to fix guilt on the accused. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Disclosure statements, consequential discoveries and their connect with crime - Having doubted the recovery of clothes at the instance of the accused, the circumstance that the clothes carried blood of same group as of the deceased is rendered meaningless because there is no admissible evidence to connect the clothes with the two accused. The disclosure statement made to the police, even if not discarded, was not admissible for proving that the clothes recovered were the one which the accused were wearing at the time of murder. The reason being that only so much of the disclosure would be admissible under Section 27 of the IEA, 1872 as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered which, in the instant case, would be the place where the clothes were concealed. (Para 76) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 13B(2) - Waiting period for mutual consent divorce can be waived by Supreme Court invoking Article 142 powers - this Court, in view of settlement between the parties, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, without being bound by the procedural requirement to move the second motion. This power should be exercised with care and caution - This Court can also, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, quash and set aside other proceedings and orders, including criminal proceedings. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Bitumen cannot be treated as a ‘valuable article’ under Section 69A. For an ‘article’ to be ‘valuable’, even in small quantity it must be ‘worth a good price’ or ‘worth a great deal of money’, and it is not sufficient if it has some ‘value’. Considering the price of one kilogram of bitumen, ‘bitumen’ cannot be treated as a ‘valuable article’. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Principle of Ejusdem Generis - the preceding words in Section 69A - such as money, bullion, and jewellery- would suggest that the phrase ‘other valuable article’ would justify inclusion of only high value goods. The ownership of the goods did not pass to the assessee, who was a mere carrier of goods and whose possession of bitumen began as a bailee. Thus, the assessee could not be said to be the ‘owner’ of bitumen so as to attract Section 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Thief cannot be recognised as the owner of the property within the meaning of Section 69A. For Section 69A to apply, it is indispensable that the Assessing Officer must find that the articles/ goods enumerated and covered under Section 69A, are owned by the assessee. A person may own contraband or prohibited articles and still be within the embrace of Section 69A. However, without finding ownership, or in a case where it is obvious that someone else is the owner, a person who is found to be in illegal possession of goods cannot be said to be the owner under Section 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 53 - Waterfall mechanism - Complete code - The waterfall mechanism is based on a structured mathematical formula, and the hierarchy is created in terms of payment of debts in order of priority with several qualifications, striking down any one of the provisions or rearranging the hierarchy in the waterfall mechanism may lead to several trips and disrupt the working of the equilibrium as a whole and stasis, resulting in instability. Every change in the waterfall mechanism is bound to lead to cascading effects on the balance of rights and interests of the secured creditors, operational creditors and even the Central and State Government. (Para 16) Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - A resolution applicant cannot be rendered ineligible to submit a resolution plan under the IBC, by assuming his/her disqualification under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, unless a categorical order disqualifying him/her to act as a director of any company is passed by the competent authority. There is no concept of ‘deemed disqualification’ under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - if a modified resolution plan, carrying however minor modification/revision, is not finally approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC), then presentation of such modified plan before the Adjudicating Authority for approval is an incurable material irregularity. No modified resolution plan can be placed directly before the NCLT, without being finally approved by the CoC. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 53 - the distribution of the assets shall have to be made as per Section 53 of the IBC subject to Section 36(4) of the IBC, in case of liquidation of company under IBC - Exclusion of Sections 326 and 327 of Companies Act 2013 in the event of liquidation of company as per IBC not arbitrary. (Para 18) Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The IBC is a significant prong in economic reforms. It has radically reshaped the law relating to insolvency and bankruptcy. The manner in which the law is administered will have to keep pace with technology. Both the Union government in its rule making capacity and the administrative heads of tribunals must ensure a seamless transition to working in the electronic mode. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Chairperson of the NCLAT and to the Secretaries to the Union Government respectively in the Ministries of (i) Finance; (ii) Corporate Affairs; and (iii) Law and Justice for ensuring compliance and remedial steps. (Para 30, 31) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - the principle of ‘Commercial Wisdom’ of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) cannot brush aside the shortcomings of the CoC in cases where decision making was done in contravention to a law which is in force for the time being. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - the Resolution Plan could not have been approved by the NCLT on twin reasons, (i) ineligibility of Successful Resolution Applicant in view of Section 88 of the Indian Trust Act; and (ii) the failure of Resolution Applicant to place the revised resolution plan before the CoC prior to seeking approval of the NCLT. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Supreme Court has declined to grant any interim relief in respect of order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) directing ‘project wise insolvency resolution process’ of Supertech Ltd.’s Eco Village-II project. The Bench has observed that constituting Committee of Creditors (CoC) for all the projects of Supertech Limited would affect the ongoing projects and cause hardship to the homebuyers. The Bench has directed that during the pendency of the appeal, any process beyond voting on the Resolution Plan should not be undertaken without specific orders of the Supreme Court in respect to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Eco Village-II project. Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Arora, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 436

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - There is no and there cannot be any concept of post facto approval of any resolution plan by CoC which had not been placed before it prior to the filing before the Adjudicating Authority. The requirement of CIRP Regulations, particularly of placing the resolution plan in its final form before the CoC, has to be scrupulously complied with. No alteration or modification in the process could be countenanced. We say so for the specific reason concerning law that if the process as adopted in the present matter is approved, the very scheme of the Code and CIRP regulations would be left open-ended and would be capable of inviting arbitrariness at any level. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 61(2) - Time taken by Tribunal to provide certified copy of order ought to be excluded from computation of limitation. (Para 28) Limitation Act, 1963; Section 12 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 238A - the date on which the order was pronounced must be excluded while computing limitation for filing of appeal against such order. The NCLAT erred in not excluding date of pronouncement of order while computing limitation. (Para 23) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 66 - the remedy against third party is not available under Section 66 of IBC, and in such circumstances, it is for the Resolution Professional or the successful resolution applicant to take such civil remedies against third party for recovery of dues payable to corporate debtor, and the civil remedies which may be available in law are independent of the said Section. (Para 10) Glukrich Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 - Mere publication of a candidate’s name in the Additional List (waiting list) for the purpose of recruitment as a Primary School Teacher, will not create any right to be appointed in favour of such candidate. Entry 66 of the Rules, which talks about additional list, does not mandatorily obligate the State to make appointments. State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472

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

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

Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947; Section 9 (1) - The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court who had ruled on the validity of the sale deed executed between the co-defendants with respect to the suit property, by holding the same as void in view of Section 9 (1) of the Fragmentation Act. Consequently, the sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff was also held as void. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947; Section 36A - While entertaining the contentions raised in respect of the Fragmentation Act, the Trial Court and the High Court did not take into consideration the statutory bar of jurisdiction contained under Section 36A of the Fragmentation Act, which barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act. Further, it reckoned that since the written statement of the defendant only contained a vague averment referring to the Fragmentation Act, the same could not be construed as a counter-claim capable of being treated as a plaint. Consequently, it did not enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, on the said issue. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - the circumstances in which the accused is said to have administered poison to her two sons is clearly reflective of her being under a state of tremendous mental stress. However, it is difficult to grant the benefit of bringing the case under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Be that as it may, the Court is not pursuaded to convert the conviction from Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304 Part I, IPC. (Para 10) Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 and 201 - Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4, 25 - the case in hand is a quintessential case where to solve out a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected which warranted a strict scrutiny before basing a conviction thereupon. On putting the prosecution evidence to strict scrutiny and testing the same on the anvil of settled legal principles, the evidence is not confidence inspiring as to uphold the conviction of the accused. The courts below have failed to properly evaluate and test the evidence by applying the correct legal principles. In such circumstances, the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside. (Para 33) Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 and 201 - Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4, 25 - there was no disclosure in the FIR as to how the dead body was found in the forest - who had seen the deceased in the company of the two persons was not disclosed in the FIR - the prosecution made later improvements in the story and made deliberate attempt to multiply the witnesses - all these circumstances taken cumulatively create a doubt in our mind as to whether it is a quintessential case of a blind murder (i.e. taking place at a secluded place in the darkness of night where no one could witness the crime), therefore, to solve the case, while groping for witnesses, the prosecution story kept evolving, either on the basis of information received from time to time, or on guess work emanating from strong suspicion, or police suggestions. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating - Explained. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Accused taking the deceased from home on a bicycle - Even if we accept PW4 daughter’s testimony that the accused, on that fateful day, took the deceased on a bicycle to the fields that by itself is not conclusive to indicate that he took her to kill her; because, admittedly, the accused held agricultural holding and it is quite possible that he may have taken his wife to assist him in the agricultural operations. It is common practice in villages for ladies to help their menfolk in agricultural operations. The allegation that while taking her a declaration was made that she would be killed does not inspire our confidence for the reason that the motive set out by the prosecution for such a quarrel has not been proved. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - there is no direct eye witness account of the murder. The body of the deceased was found in the open on a railway track. In such circumstances to sustain a conviction the court would have to consider — (i) whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused; (iv) whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (v) whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (Para 23) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Disclosure Statement and Recovery - The prosecution placed heavy reliance on recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones from the hut of the accused on the basis of disclosure made by him - All papers were prepared at one go rendering the entire exercise of disclosure and consequential discovery/recovery doubtful - the High Court was justified in doubting the recovery of blood-stained clothes etc. at the instance of the accused from the hut and on the basis of a disclosure statement made by him. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Extra Judicial Confession - The alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW4 daughter was neither disclosed in the FIR nor in the previous statement of PW4 made during investigation. PW4 was confronted with that omission during her deposition in court. That apart, the testimony of PW4 with regard to the accused returning home, making extra judicial confession, changing clothes, washing blood-stained clothes and spreading them to dry has been found unreliable and shaky by the High Court for cogent reasons, which do not appear perverse as to warrant an interference. Thus, the circumstance of extra judicial confession is also not proved beyond doubt. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Motive - the original motive for the crime was a dispute arising from keeping of jewellery by the deceased with her sister, whereas the statement of prosecution witnesses established that the jewellery had been returned much before the incident, therefore, there existed no cogent motive for the crime - the prosecution failed to prove the motive set out by it. No doubt absence of motive by itself may not be sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case if the other proven circumstances could form a chain so complete as to indicate that in all human probability it is the accused and no one else who committed the crime but, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part. Because, not only it makes the story believable but also helps the court in fortifying an inference which may be drawn against the accused from other attending circumstances. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Quarrels and disputes between husband and wife are everyday phenomena and not such an event which may create a strong suspicion of an impending crime much less murder. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – The Supreme Court upheld the decision of High Court which acquitted an accused who was awarded death sentence by the Trial Court for the alleged murder of his wife on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery, and extra judicial confession) beyond reasonable doubt. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 read with 34 and 120B – Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Apartment from where the dead body was found stood in the tenancy and possession of accused - the prosecution has failed to prove a chain of incriminating circumstances as to conclusively point out that in all human probability it was the two accused or any one of them, and no one else, who had committed the murder. In such circumstances, even if the accused failed to explain as to how the dead body of the deceased was found in his apartment, an inference of his guilt cannot be drawn. In a nutshell, it is a case where the prosecution failed to elevate its case from the realm of "may be true" to the plane of "must be true" as is indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge. (Para 86) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376, 377, 302 and 201 - Rape & Murder of 6-year-old girl - Numerous lapses in investigation - the reasons why the investigation officers were changed time and again from PW 6 to PW 12 and then to PW 13, is surprising and unexplained. No reason stands given for having decided that there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 53A of CrPC. There is unexplained delay in sending the samples collected for analysis. A premises already searched was searched again, the reason for which is not borne from record. Lock panchnama is not prepared. No samples of blood and semen of the accused can be said to have been drawn by any medical or para medical staff, allegedly an additional sample is taken from the accused more than a month after the arrest. Alleged disclosure statement of the accused was never read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language. The accused was not residing alone at the place alleged to be his residence. What was the basis of the accused being a suspect at the first instance, remains a mystery. Persons who may have shed light on essential aspects went unexamined. Such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril. Thus, the Court set aside the conviction and sentences of death penalty and life imprisonment imposed on the accused and set him at liberty. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Jallikattu Law can't be termed arbitrary merely because bulls lack natural ability to run like horses. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - The Supreme Court has expressed its disagreement with the 2014 division bench judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors insofar as it held that Jallikattu is not a cultural practice in Tamil Nadu. As per the materials placed before the Court, Jallikattu is going in Tamil Nadu for at least the last one century and whether or not it as an integral part of Tamil culture could not have been decided by the Court. When the legislature has declared that Jallikattu is part of the cultural heritage of TN state, the judiciary cannot take a different view. Legislature is best suited to decide that. The preamble to the state amendment had stated that Jallikettu is a part of cultural heritage of the State. We will not disrupt the view of the legislature that it is part of the cultural heritage of the state. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - there is no precedent to show that the Constitution of India recognises fundamental rights for animals. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Act 15 of 2003) – Section 3 – Registration of ECIR – Effect of delay – Information about all complaints, the nature of the complaints, and the amount of money allegedly collected towards illegal gratification had all come into the public domain – Once a piece of information relating to the acquisition of a huge amount of illegal gratification in the matter of public employment has come into the public domain, it is the duty of the ED to register an Information Report – Held, registration of ECIR does not amount to fishing expedition – Further held, argument that there is no explanation for the delay in registering the ECIR self-serving – Writ petition challenging ED investigation dismissed. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Mere fact that chargesheet has been filed for the predicate offences is not a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the offences under the PML Act. Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 – Sections 3 and 2(1)(u) – Offence of Money Laundering – Definition of proceeds of crime – In offences of corruption, criminal activity and generation of proceeds of crime go hand-in-hand – Wherever there are allegations of corruption, the acquisition of proceeds of crime itself tantamount to money laundering – Even if an intangible property is derived as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, it becomes proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) – Held, arguments that there are no foundational facts or jurisdictional facts unsustainable and as such, proceedings before Enforcement Directorate not illegal – Writ petition challenging ED investigation dismissed. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887; Section 17 - Security furnished by the judgment debtor in the form of a rented shop belonging to a third party, of which the surety was a tenant, cannot be accepted as a security in law. The proviso to Section 17 of the Act contemplates that the applicant seeking to set aside an exparte decree must either make a deposit of the amount in question or give security. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 582, the provision with respect to deposit can be dispensed with by the court. Thus, the applicant can, in other words, seek a dispensation with the requirement of deposit and can seek leave for furnishing such security as the court may direct. Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 473

Railways Act, 1989 - Mere absence of a ticket on the injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 449

Railways Act, 1989 - Whenever any untoward incident occurs in the course of working of the railway, the Railway Administration is liable to compensate the passenger irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of railway administration. Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 449

Representation of the People Act 1951; Section 62 - Supreme Court rejects challenge to Section 62(5) RP Act which denies prisoners right to vote. Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Whether a non-Tribal has the right to vote in a Scheduled Area – Held, every eligible voter is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of a constituency, in which he is ordinarily residing. Therefore, any person eligible to vote who is ordinarily residing in the Scheduled Area has a right to vote, even if he is a non-Tribal. (Para 16) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Representation of the People Act, 1951; Sections 123, 83(1) (a) - Failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition. When allegations of corrupt practice are made against an elected representative in an election petition, the proceedings virtually become quasi-criminal. Further, the outcome of such a petition is very serious, which can oust a popularly elected representative of the people. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts concerning the ground of corrupt practice, must result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold itself. (Para 13) Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 - An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 - In order to get an election declared as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election petitioner must aver that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or any rules or orders made under the Act, the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, was materially affected. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 - Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. Material facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 - The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 - The material facts must be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute the cause of action, that is every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the judgement of court. Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951; Section 83(1)(a) - Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. If material facts are not stated in an Election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Credit note issued by an automobile manufacturer to a dealer of automobiles, in consideration of the replacement of a defective part done by the dealer pursuant to a warranty agreement, is exigible to sales tax. When a dealer replaces a defective part of the automobile by a spare part maintained in its stock or when the same is purchased by the dealer from the open market, in such situations, the credit note issued in the name of the dealer is a valuable consideration for transfer of property in the spare part made by the dealer to the customer. The same constitutes a “sale” under both the Central Sales Tax Act as well as the respective sales tax legislations of the respective States. Thus, the assessee-dealers are liable to pay sales tax on the said transaction. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SPL), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Sales Tax Act, 1994 (West Bengal) - Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation & Promissory Estoppel - The Supreme Court has passed a split judgment on the issue concerning the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation where a tax holiday/ sales tax exemption granted to the appellant- manufacturer was stopped pursuant to the amendments made to the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. Pursuant to the amendments made by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2001, Section 2(17) of the 1994 Act was amended w.e.f. 01.08.2001, and the words “blending of tea” were omitted from the definition of “manufacture” provided under Section 2(17). While Justice Krishna Murari concurred with the view taken by Justice M.R. Shah that the appellant had no “vested right” in claiming exemption from payment of sales tax under the 1994 Act after the amendment, Justice Murari dissented with Justice Shah on the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Justice Murari in his separate judgment reckoned that it was on the basis of such tax holiday that the appellant had set up small-scale industrial units for the purpose of carrying on the business of manufacturing blended tea. Thus, the same created a legitimate expectation in favour of the appellant. Justice Murari held that if a legitimate expectation is being taken away by way of a modification to an existing policy on grounds of public interest, such public interest must be demonstrated by the said modification. He further ruled that a blanket bar on the invocation of legitimate expectation against a statute is contrary to the rule of law. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position. Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 3(1)(x) - Before subjecting an accused to a trial for alleged commission of offence, it is desirable that the caste related utterances are outlined either in the FIR or, atleast, in the chargesheet. The same would enable it to ascertain if a case is made out for an offence under the SC/ST Act before taking cognisance of the matter. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 - Auction cannot be stayed just because the sale agreement holder offered to pay dues, when the borrower hasn't invoked S.13(8). G. Vikram Kumar v State Bank of Hyderabad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006; Rule 2A - Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007; Rule 3(1) - the value of the service portion in the execution of the works contract has to be determined as per Rule 2A of Service Tax Rules, or as per the Composition Scheme, if adopted by the assessee, and that the assessee has to pay service tax on the service element and can claim CENVAT Credit only on the said amount - set aside the judgement and order passed by the CESTAT, where it had held that the assessee was entitled to take the total contract value, which included both goods and services, and remit service tax on the entire value as ‘works contract’ and that the assessee was also entitled to avail the CENVAT Credit on the whole amount - upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority that the respondent-assessee was not entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on Central Excise duty paid on inputs (building material) used in or in relation to the said works contract. CC and CE and ST, Noida v. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 393

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Directions - To fulfil the promise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country, it is deemed appropriate to issue the following directions : (I) The Union of India, all State Governments and Union Territories are directed to undertake a timebound exercise to verify as to whether all the concerned Ministries, Departments, Government organizations, authorities, Public Sector Undertakings, institutions, bodies, etc. have constituted ICCs/LCs/ICs, as the case may be and that the composition of the said Committees are strictly in terms of the provisions of the PoSH Act. (ii) It shall be ensured that necessary information regarding the constitution and composition of the ICCs/LCs/ICs, details of the email IDs and contact numbers of the designated person(s), the procedure prescribed for submitting an online complaint, as also the relevant rules, regulations and internal policies are made readily available on the website of the concerned Authority/Functionary/Organisation/Institution/Body, as the case may be. The information furnished shall also be updated from time to time. (iii) A similar exercise shall be undertaken by all the Statutory bodies of professionals at the Apex level and the State level (including those regulating doctors, lawyers, architects, chartered accountants, cost accountants, engineers, bankers and other professionals), by Universities, colleges, Training Centres and educational institutions and by government and private hospitals/nursing homes. (iv) Immediate and effective steps shall be taken by the authorities/ managements/employers to familiarize members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs with their duties and the manner in which an inquiry ought to be conducted on receiving a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace, from the point when the complaint is received, till the inquiry is finally concluded and the Report submitted. (v) The authorities/management/employers shall regularly conduct orientation programmes, workshops, seminars and awareness programmes to upskill members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs and to educate women employees and women’s groups about the provisions of the Act, the Rules and relevant regulations. (vi) The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) shall develop modules to conduct workshops and organize awareness programmes to sensitize authorities / managements / employers, employees and adolescent groups with the provisions of the Act, which shall be included in their annual calendar. (vii) The National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies shall include in their annual calendars, orientation programmes, seminars and workshops for capacity building of members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs established in the High Courts and District Courts and for drafting Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to conduct an inquiry under the Act and Rules. (viii) A copy of this judgment shall be transmitted to the Secretaries of all the Ministries, Government of India who shall ensure implementation of the directions by all the concerned Departments, Statutory Authorities, Institutions, Organisations etc. under the control of the respective Ministries. A copy of the judgment shall also be transmitted to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories who shall ensure strict compliance of these directions by all the concerned Departments. It 2 shall be the responsibility of the Secretaries of the Ministries, Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of every State/Union Territory to ensure implementation of the directions issued. (ix) The Registry of the Supreme Court of India shall transmit a copy of this judgment to the Director, National Judicial Academy, Member Secretary, NALSA, Chairperson, Bar Council of India and the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts. The Registry shall also transmit a copy of this judgment to the Medical Council of India, Council of Architecture, Institute of Chartered Accountants, Institute of Company Secretaries and the Engineering Council of India for implementing the directions issued. (x) Member-Secretary, NALSA is requested to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretaries of all the State Legal Services Authorities. Similarly, the Registrar Generals of the State High Courts shall transmit a copy of this judgment to the Directors of the State Judicial Academies and the Principal District Judges/District Judges of their respective States. (xi) The Chairperson, Bar Council of India and the Apex Bodies mentioned in sub-para (ix) above, shall in turn, transmit a copy of this judgment to all the State Bar Councils and the State Level Councils, as the case may be. The Union of India and all States/UTs are directed to file their affidavits within eight weeks for reporting compliances. (Para 77) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Rule 14 - Non-framing of the articles of charge – Effect of - In the instant case, though the Committee appointed by the Disciplinary Authority did not hold an inquiry strictly in terms of the step-by-step procedure laid down in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, nonetheless, we have seen that it did furnish copies of all the complaints, the depositions of the complainants and the relevant material to the appellant, called upon him to give his reply in defence and directed him to furnish the list of witnesses that he proposed to rely on. Records also reveal that the appellant had furnished a detailed reply in defence. He had also submitted a list of witnesses and depositions. This goes to show that he was well-acquainted with the nature of allegations levelled against him and knew what he had to state in his defence. Given the above position, non-framing of the articles of charge cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the appellant. (Para 70) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Defects and the Procedural Lapses - In fact, the glaring defects and the procedural lapses in the inquiry proceedings took place only thereafter, in the month of May, 2009, when 12 hearings, most of them back-to-back, were conducted by the Committee at a lightning speed. On the one hand, the Committee kept on forwarding to the appellant, depositions of some more complainants received later on and those of other witnesses and called upon him to furnish his reply and on the other hand, it directed him to come prepared to cross-examine the said complainants and witnesses as also record his further deposition, all in a span of one week. Even if the medical grounds taken by the appellant seemed suspect, the Committee ought to have given him reasonable time to prepare his defence, more so when his request for being represented through a lawyer had already been declined. It was all this undue anxiety that had led to short circuiting the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Committee and damaging the very fairness of the process. (Para 71) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Fairness of the Process - the appellant 3 cannot be faulted for questioning the process and its outcome. There is no doubt that matters of this nature are sensitive and have to be handled with care. The respondents had received as many as seventeen complaints from students levelling serious allegations of sexual harassment against the appellant. But that would not be a ground to give a complete go by to the procedural fairness of the inquiry required to be conducted, more so when the inquiry could lead to imposition of major penalty proceedings. When the legitimacy of the decision taken is dependent on the fairness of the process and the process adopted itself became questionable, then the decision arrived at cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is wide open to interference. It is not without reason that it is said that a fair procedure alone can guarantee a fair outcome. In this case, the anxiety of the Committee of being fair to the victims of sexual harassment, has ended up causing them greater harm. (Para 72) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - the proceedings conducted by the Committee with effect from the month of May, 2009, fell short of the “as far as practicable” norm prescribed in the relevant Rules. The discretion vested in the Committee for conducting the inquiry has been exercised improperly, defying the principles of natural justice. As a consequence thereof, the impugned judgment upholding the decision taken by the EC of terminating the services of the appellant, duly endorsed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside with the following directions: (i) The matter is remanded back to the Complaints Committee to take up the inquiry proceeding as they stood on 5th May 2009. (ii) The Committee shall afford adequate opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. (iii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment of the proceedings. (iv) A Report shall be submitted by the Committee to the Disciplinary Authority for appropriate orders. (v) Having regard to the long passage of time, the respondents are directed to complete the entire process within three months from the first date of hearing fixed by the Committee. (vi) The procedure to be followed by the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. (vii) The Rules applied will be as were applicable at the relevant point of time. (viii)The decision taken by the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority shall be purely on merits and in accordance with law. (ix) The appellant will not be entitled to claim immediate reinstatement or back wages till the inquiry is completed and a decision is taken by the Disciplinary Authority. (Para 73) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII Rule 1 - The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed against the Constitution Bench judgment which upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. Society for the Rights of Backward Communities v. Janhit Abhiyan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 441

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII Rule 3 - Disposal of review petitions by circulation without any oral arguments - The decision of this Court in P N Eswara Iyer v Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680 does not warrant any reconsideration - The challenge to the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 lacks substance. P.T. Mohan v. Registrar Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 379

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

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

Wakf Act, 1954; Sections 4 and 5 - Conducting survey is prerequisite before declaring property as wakf - In the absence of survey conducted under Section 4, the mere issuance of the notification under Section 5 of the Act would not constitute a valid wakf in respect of the suit land. (Para 32) Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Wakf Act, 1995; Section 52A - Criminal proceedings under Section 52A cannot be maintained against persons who were in possession of the Wakf property when the said provision was introduced in 2013 and continue to remain in possession after the expiry of lease, contesting civil proceedings for eviction - the expiry of leases, or other arrangements, by efflux of time or their valid terminations, in the past, does not mean that such lessees become “encroachers”. (Para 22) P.V. Nidhish v. Kerala State Waqf Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 383

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 407
2. Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431
3. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 385
4. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452
5. Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442
6. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447
7. Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 473
8. Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 458
9. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 405
10. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424
11. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466
12. Balwant Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 391
13. Bohatie Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 376
14. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413
15. Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 419
16. Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462
17. Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 380
18. CC and CE and ST, Noida v. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 393
19. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457
20. Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446
21. Chief General Manager, BSNL v. M.J. Paul, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 414
22. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 397
23. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451
24. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404
25. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456
26. Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395
27. Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 433
28. Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 432
29. ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378
30. G. Vikram Kumar v State Bank of Hyderabad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 394
31. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459
32. Glukrich Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464
33. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423
34. Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thamaraiselvam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 400
35. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476
36. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384
37. Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421
38. Haryana Power Purchase Centre v. Sasan Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 409
39. Haryana Urban Development Authority v Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429
40. Heinz India Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 411
41. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 392
42. Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Arora, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 436
43. Indian Oil Corporation v. Sathyanarayana Service Station, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 415
44. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425
45. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 412
46. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450
47. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377
48. K. Chinnammal v. L.R. Eknath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437
49. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428
50. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453
51. K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 439
52. Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396
53. Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 449
54. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398
55. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403
56. Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444
57. Meenal Bhargava v. Naveen Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 475
58. Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386
59. Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401
60. National Insurance Company Ltd.v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 445
61. Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389
62. P.T. Mohan v. Registrar Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 379
63. P.V. Nidhish v. Kerala State Waqf Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 383
64. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402
65. Pradhani Jani v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 455
66. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461
67. Prasanna v. Mudegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 381
68. Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 463
69. Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434
70. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469
71. Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 372
72. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470
73. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 426
74. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 416
75. Sachit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 382
76. Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 460
77. Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454
78. Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435
79. Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 420
80. Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406
81. Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465
82. Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418
83. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 410
84. Sebil Elanjimpally v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 474
85. Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471
86. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375
87. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 417
88. Society for the Rights of Backward Communities v. Janhit Abhiyan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 441
89. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468
90. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Varla Ramaiah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 390
91. State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472
92. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408
93. State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 438
94. State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427
95. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387
96. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422
97. Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373
98. Sunil v. High Court of Delhi, 28 Apr 2023 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 374
99. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467
100. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SPL), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 443
101. Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 448
102. Union of India v. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430
103. Union of India v. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 388
104. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440
105. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399