SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Bail

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

Central Excise

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

Civil Law

Dispute on apportionment of compensation can only be determined by 'principal civil court of original jurisdiction'. Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511

Error which has to be detected by a long drawn process of reasoning is not an 'error apparent on the face of record' for review. Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506

Order 41 Rule 22 CPC - Cross objections have all trappings of regular appeal; must be considered in full. Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Constitution

State action even in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14. Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Consumer Law

Manufacturing Defect - the Supreme Court directs Ford India Ltd. to pay Rs. 42 lakhs as compensation to a consumer who purchased a car which had manufacturing defects. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. v. Medical Eleborate Concept Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Criminal Law

Attempt to culpable homicide - Conviction under section 308 IPC not sustainable if accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death. Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Continuing trend of projecting purely civil financial dispute as criminal matter 'extremely disturbing'. Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500

Section 180 IPC can't be applied against a person for refusing to sign statement given to police : Supreme Sourt castigates DYSP. Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494

'Downright Bizarre' : Supreme Court on High Court Judgment resulting in different jail terms for convicts in the same offence. Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Criminal Trial

Child Witness- Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution. (Para 8) Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501

Evidence

Trial Courts should make proper preliminary examination of child witnesses before recording their evidence. Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501

Forest

Right of forest inhabitants for claims against eviction to be heard by forest officer not limited to recogonized forest communities. Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Import

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court who had set aside the increased quota allocated for import of raw pet-coke (RPC) based on the “Consent to Operate” (CTO) issued to the importer recording an enhanced production capacity, after the top court’s order dated 09.10.2018. The bench remarked that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) had issued the CTO for the additional quantity after the Supreme Court’s order dated 09.10.2018, where it had fixed the outer limit for import of RPC based on the total production capacity of the entities existing on the said date. The court said that since the appellant/ importer’s additional capacity was created after the Supreme Court’s order dated 09.10.2018, the same could not have been considered by the court. Sanvira Industries v. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 497

Industrial Disputes

'After allowing workmen to work for 2 decades, management cannot challenge the award': Supreme Court allows appeal of FCI workers. FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491

Interpretation of Statutes

The first and foremost rule of construction is the literal construction. All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision state. If the provision is unambiguous and from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statute. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear ­ The other rules of interpretation, for example, the mischief rule/ purposive construction, etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally would nullify the very object of the statute. Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistakes. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court cannot correct or make up the deficiency. (Para 24, 25) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511

Penal Statutes - “Shall not be less than…" - When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. (Para 12) State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502

Land Scams

Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an encumbrance free status. Organized criminal networks often plan and execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them to vacate their properties. These land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socio-economic progress. (Para 25) Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514

Medical Insurance

Once there is a valid insurance policy in favour of a person, the claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred must be paid. Once the insurance company has accepted that concealment of a disease at the time of purchasing the policy was not material as it was not related to the disease that caused death, it cannot later refuse further claims or renewal of insurance policy on the same ground. Om Prakash Ahuja v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 509

Motor Vehicle

Motor Accident Claim - Physical disability must be assessed with reference to the victim's nature of work. Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498

National Security

Delay - The record reveals it is only on the prodding on the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed after more than a decade. The delay, be it for whatever reason, attributable to the judge incharge or the prosecution, has certainly compromised national interest. Expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man. Regrettably, enough vigilance was not displayed by the investigating as well as the judicial authorities. A prominent market in the heart of the capital city is attacked and we may point out that it has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention. To our great dismay, we are forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of influential persons which is evident from the fact that out of several accused persons, only few have been put to trial. In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels. (Para 210) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Sale

Right to repurchase - Right of repurchase assignable or transferable and cannot be treated as personal to the contracting parties - The condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so. Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable. The only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature. The assignment of obligations in a document is not possible without the consent of the other party. No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document. The benefit of contract is assignable in cases where it does not make any difference to the person on whom the obligations lies, to which of two persons he is to discharge. (Para 18-21) Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 495

SARFAESI Act

Magistrate's Order under Section 14 SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513

Service Law

To claim backwages, initial burden is on employee to establish that he was not gainfully employed during period of dismissal. (Para 7) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

The fact whether an employee after dismissal from service was gainfully employed is something which is within his special knowledge. Considering the principle incorporated in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the initial burden is on the employee to come out with the case that he was not gainfully employed after the order of termination. It is a negative burden. However, in what manner the employee can discharge the said burden will depend upon on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It all depends on the pleadings and evidence on record. Since, it is a negative burden, in a given case, an assertion on oath by the employee that he was unemployed, may be sufficient compliance in the absence of any positive material brought on record by the employer. (Para 7) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

Even if the Court passes an order of reinstatement in service, an order of payment of back wages is not automatic. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 9) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

It is not possible to accept that for the entire period of thirteen years, the employee had no source of income. However, the employer has not come out with the case that from the date of his removal from service, the employee had another source of income. Thus, the employee discharged the burden on him by establishing that he was unemployed. (Para 9) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

Special Leave Petition

Whether liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach the High Court in review, automatically places the said matter in the escalation matrix, and makes the remedy of Special Leave Petition available again? - the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger Bench. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Tax

Taxation Classification - Specific provision will prevail over general provision in a statute : Supreme Court in ‘Maize Starch’ case. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Terrorism

Expeditious trial of terror attack cases necessary: Supreme Court says delay in 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case compromised national security. Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Terrorism and Disruptive Activities - Expeditious Trial of terror attack cases necessary - Delay in 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case compromised national security – The Supreme Court while sentencing to life imprisonment without remission four Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) militants convicted for their role in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast, not only underscored the importance of speedy trials, but also considered the time elapsed since the terror attack as well as the date of conviction as mitigating circumstances in not awarding the death penalty. (Para 208) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508

1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case - The bomb blast caused at the behest of the accused persons resulted in the death of 13 persons and 38 persons suffered injuries. There was further damage caused to the livelihood of the shopkeepers, whose shops were burnt down due to the said bomb blast. It is evident that these accused persons were part of the plan for future blasts in the nation as well. The incident took place on May 21, 1996, i.e., approximately 27 years ago, the trial court awarded the sentence of death on April 22, 2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases. (Para 208) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508

STATUTE  WISE INDEX

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 22 - In cases where the decree passed by the court of first instance is in favor of the respondent in whole, in such circumstance, no remedy exists in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal can be vested onto a party, which is successful. However, in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance, is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also partly against the respondent, two remedies within Order 41 Rule 22 remain with the respondent, which are (i) To file their cross objections and, (ii) To support the decree in whole. A third remedy in law also exists, which is the right to file a cross appeal, which will also be discussed in brief - In cases where the opposing party files a first appeal against part or whole of the original decree, and the respondent in the said first appeal, due to part or whole of the decree being in their favour, abstains from filing an appeal at the first instance, in such cases, to ensure that the respondent is also given a fair chance to be heard, he is given the right to file his cross objections within the appeal already so instituted by the other party, against not only the contentions raised by the other party, but also against part or whole of the decree passed by the court of first instance - In a similar circumstance, where the other party in the first instance has preferred an appeal, apart from the remedy of cross objections, the respondent can also file a cross appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party. The respondent also has the right to fully support the original decree passed by the lower court in full. (Para 12-16) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 22 - While cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same. (Para 17) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114; Order XLVII Rule 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII of Part IV - An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record - An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (Para 9-15) Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 and Order XLI - The court of first appeal has a duty to record its findings qua all the issues raised before it, and in cases where the High Court fails to do the same, the matter must be remanded to the same court again for fresh adjudication. (Para 20-22) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 222 (2) - Court can consider whether the accused has committed any other offence which is a minor offence in comparison to the offence for which he is tried. (Para 13) Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome. (Para 19) Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - the High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the accused and imposing payment of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh) as a condition precedent for grant of bail. (Para 29) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - the process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service for settling a civil dispute. (Para 27) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Willingness of accused to deposit money as bail condition must be considered only in cases involving public money; not in private cases. (Para 26) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, ~ conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. (Para 17) Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Trend of projecting a purely civil financial dispute as a criminal matter with a view to intimidate and in abuse of the criminal process - In “Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.”, (2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court had noticed that taking recourse to criminal law by bypassing statutory remedies to bring the financial institutions on their knees, has the inherent potentiality to affect the marrows of economic health of the nation. Further, in “Vijay Kumar Ghai & Anr. Vs. State of W.B. & Ors.” (2022) 7 SCC 124, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings being abuse of law in a purely civil financial dispute and being a case of forum shopping. Despite these judgments, continuation of such a trend appears extremely disturbing. Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482, 397 - The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge / proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or Section 482 Cr. P.C. or together. (Para 17) Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The State action irrespective of being in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14 of the Constitution - The fact that a dispute falls into the contractual realm does not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the requirements of Article 14 - When a power exists to effectuate a purpose it must be exercised within a reasonable time. (Para 36) Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse - The introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 26-30) Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 118 - Criminal Trial - Child Witness - Trial Judge's duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers to the questions put to him - The Trial Judge must also record his opinion that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why he is of the opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth. Before recording evidence of a minor, it is the duty of a Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to him with a view to ascertain whether the minor can understand the questions put to him and is in a position to give rational answers. The Judge must be satisfied that the minor is able to understand the questions and respond to them and understands the importance of speaking the truth. Therefore, the role of the Judge who records the evidence is very crucial. He has to make a proper preliminary examination of the minor by putting appropriate questions to ascertain whether the minor is capable of understanding the questions put to him and is able to give rational answers. It is advisable to record the preliminary questions and answers so that the Appellate Court can go into the correctness of the opinion of the Trial Court. (Para 7-9) Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501

Forest Act, 1927 - Claims againt eviction - In Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 1986 4 SCC 753, certain Adivasi communities inhabiting the situate land were being evicted from their homes on grounds of the said land being subject to a Section 4 notification under the Forest Act. It was held that the said inhabitants had a right for their claims to be heard by the Forest Officer, and it was the forest officer, who had the power to go into the merits of the case and decide the claims of the inhabitants - whether the relief granted in the Judgment of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh is only applicable to SC/ST/ other backward communities? Banwasi Judgment (Supra), only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if such authority rejects a claim, then the said claim cannot exist against the situate land. This right to be heard, in our opinion, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim. Further, the right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc. If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same. (Para 17-23) Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507

General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu); Sections 3(2), 28-A; Schedule I, Part B (Taxation Entry No.61) and Schedule III, Part B (Exemption Entry No.8) - Classification and taxability of ‘maize starch’ under the TNGST Act for the assessment year, i.e., 1998-99 - If in any statutory rule or statutory notification, two expressions are used - one in general words and the other in special terms – then, as per the rules of interpretation, the special terms are not meant to be included in the general expression. Where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Sections 10(1)(d), 17B and 25F - Having allowed the workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, the management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to the Award, merely because it made its compliance with the Award conditional long ago. In the light of their absorption in regular service, these workmen, who may have otherwise opted for employment opportunities elsewhere, altered their position and remained with the FCI. Having placed them in that position, it is no longer open to the management of FCI to seek to turn back the clock. (Para 16) FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491

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

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

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

National Highways Authority Act, 1956; Section 3H - Apportionment under sub­clause (4) of Section 3H of the Act 1956 is not a revaluation but a distribution of the value already fixed among the several persons interested in the land acquired in accordance with the nature and quantum of the respective interests. In ascertainment of those interests, the determination of their relative importance and the manner in which they can be said to have contributed to the total value fixed are questions to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law governing the rights of the parties. The actual rule for apportionment has to be formulated in each case so as to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the total value or compensation among the persons interested in the land. (Para 28) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511

National Highways Authority Act, 1956; Section 3H - When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge ­If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the summary power, vesting in the competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of sub­section (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. The dispute being of the nature triable by the Civil Court that the law steps in to provide for that to be referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court. (Para 33-34) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511

Penal Code, 1860; Section 180 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement - Section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign. (Para 22) Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 411, 436 and 120B - Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Section 5 - In view of the severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. (Para 212- 213) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304 Part II and 149 - Different sentence for the convicts for the same offence - The impugned judgment fell into error in not considering the gravity of the offence. Having held all the accused criminally liable, under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and also not having found any distinguishing feature in the form of separate roles played by each of them, the imposition of the “sentence undergone” criteria, amounted to an aberration, and the sentencing is for that reason, flawed. This court is, therefore, of the view that given the totality of circumstances (which includes the fact that the accused have been at large for the past four years), the appropriate sentence would be five years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 16) Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Penal Code, 1860; Section 308 - Attempt to Culpable Homicide - Conviction under section 308 IPC not sustainable if accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death. Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Penal Code, 1860; Section 338 - Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others - At that relevant time, the bus was overcrowded. There were a number of passengers waiting at the bus stop. Therefore, it was the duty of the conductor to take care of the passengers. Hence, before he rang the bell and gave a signal to the driver to start the bus, he ought to have verified whether all passengers had safely boarded the bus. He could have ascertained this from accused no.3 – cleaner who was standing near the door of the bus. However, he did not take that precaution and care which he was under an obligation to take. Therefore, the accused acted rashly and negligently as he did not perform his duty of being careful. The accused knew that at the relevant bus stop, a large number of students were waiting to take the bus to reach their school and therefore, the accused ought to have verified whether all the passengers had properly boarded the bus before giving the signal to the driver. However, he did not verify whether the passengers had properly boarded the bus. Therefore, he is guilty of negligence as he failed to perform his duty. In fact, this was an act of recklessness on his part. The fact is that due to the negligence on the part of the accused, human life was endangered. (Para 14) Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - It is considered appropriate to remind the high courts and the sessions courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while seeking bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC. and incorporating a condition in that behalf for deposit/payment as a pre-requisite for grant of bail. (Para 2) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail. (Para 26) Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6, in its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence. (Para 12) State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 6 - Accused had put his penis into mouth of the victim aged about 10 years and discharged semen - The accused has committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault as he has committed penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years. (Para 7-11) State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - Magistrate's Order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC when there is a remedy under the SARFAESI Act. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510
2. Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506
3. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512
4. Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493
5. FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491
6. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. v. Medical Eleborate Concept Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 515
7. Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500
8. Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507
9. Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 495
10. Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505
11. Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508
12. Om Prakash Ahuja v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 509
13. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513
14. Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501
15. Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514
16. Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503
17. Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496
18. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 504
19. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499
20. Sanvira Industries v. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 497
21. Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498
22. State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 502
23. Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494
24. Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492
25. Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511