Supreme Court Monthly Digest With Nominal and Subject/Statute Wise Index- March 2022

Amendment - If power to amend or modify or relax a notification and/or order exists, the notification and/or order may be amended and/or modified as many times, as may be necessary. A statement made by counsel in Court would not prevent the authority concerned from making amendments and/or modifications provided such amendments and/or modifications were as per the procedure prescribed by law. (Para 47) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Anticipatory Bail - SLP Against Madras HC Judgment dismissing anticipatory bail with some observations about requirement of custodial interrogation- Dismissed - High Court, after having found no case for grant of pre-arrest bail, has otherwise not given any such direction of mandatory nature - Observations are essentially of the reasons assigned by the High Court in declining the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - When two or more Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement, the parties might, by agreement, decide to refer all disputes to any one Court to the exclusion of all other Courts, which might otherwise have had jurisdiction to decide the disputes. The parties cannot, however, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a Court which inherently lacked jurisdiction. (Para 47) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Only if the agreement of the parties was construed to provide for seat/place of arbitration in India, would Part-I of the 1996 Act be applicable. If the seat/place were outside India, Part-I would not apply, even though the venue of a few sittings may have been in India, or the cause of action may have arisen in India. (Para 36) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seat and Venue - Sittings at various places are relatable to venue. It cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration, which has a different connotation. (Para 44, 45) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Special leave petition against an order of the Calcutta High Court, allowing an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator - Allowed - Calcutta High Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) and 2(1)(e) - An application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 - The Section has obviously been enacted to prevent the parties from being dragged into proceedings in different Courts, when more than one Court has jurisdiction. Where with respect to any arbitration agreement, any application under Part I of the A&C Act has been made in a Court, that Court alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement, and the arbitral proceedings, would have to be made in that Court and in no other Court, unless, of course, the Court in which the first application had been instituted, inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain that application. The Section which starts with a non obstante clause, is binding irrespective of any other law for the time being in force, and irrespective of any other provision in Part I of the A&C Act. (Para 31) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 and 11(6) - Section 42 cannot possibly have any application to an application under Section 11(6), which necessarily has to be made before a High Court, unless the earlier application was also made in a High Court. (Para 32) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Army Law - Appeal against Armed Forces Tribunal order of conviction and dismissal from service of former Lt Gen SK Sahni for allegations relating to procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation - Allowed - AFT has specifically come to a finding that the respondent has not committed any fraud or did not commit any act which resulted in actual loss or wrongful gain to any person. We are unable to appreciate as to on what basis the learned AFT comes to a conclusion that the acts lead to an inference that the attempts were made to cause a wrongful gain. Union of India v. Lt. Gen SK Sahni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Central Excise and Customs Commissionerates Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officer and Examiner) Group 'B' Posts Recruitment Rules 2016 - The absence of a provision for filling up a post in the Commissionerate by absorption of persons belonging to the cadre of another Commissionerate clearly indicates that the cadre is treated as a posting unit and there is no occasion to absorb a person from outside the cadre who holds a similar or comparable post. (Para 32) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Civil Suit - Adverse Possession - Suit for declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership – Maintainable. Darshan Kaur Bhatia v. Ramesh Gandhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Civil Suit - If the title to the property was the basis of the relief of possession, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief. (Para 11) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Civil Suit - Injunction - Once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. (Para 9) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the procedure adopted by the Execution Court that did not invite objections under Order XXI Rule 34 from Judgment debtor to draft sale deed produced by Decree holder - Allowed - Clearly contravenes the salutary provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 - The objections of the appellant to the draft sale deed to be considered. Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - While procedure is said to be the handmaiden of justice and substantial justice must prevail and the former may take the backseat, failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree holder realising the fruits of the decree. (Para 1) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - High Court dismissed an application for additional evidence filed by the appellant to bring on record certain sale deeds and certified copy of the judgments and awards passed in other land acquisition cases, which he contended, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value -Allowed - It was a case of awarding of fair compensation to the land owner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - There was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have allowed the application for additional evidence. Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - The appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances - Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed - The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause - The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. (Para 4) Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959; Sections 250, 257 - Appeal against High Court which allowed application filed by defendants seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit before the Civil Court would be barred in view of Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Allowed - High Court did not appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had earlier approached the Revenue Authority / Tehsildar where he was non­suited on the ground that Revenue Authority / Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to title to the suit property - Defendants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts. Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint - Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected - The plaint cannot be rejected partially. (Para 7, 7.1, 7.4) Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security and the appellant had no right to encash it - In essence, the suit attempts to frustrate the possibility of the appellant initiating action under the provision of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque - Such reliefs are barred by law - Revisional court was just in allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution - While it is true that the court must be diligent in the matter of executing a decree passed after adjudication which spans a long period of time, it is also the duty of the court to execute the decree as it is and in accordance with law - Though, it is indeed open to the executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the decree. (Para 11, 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - It is the duty of the court to cause the draft to be served upon the judgment debtor and to apply its mind and to make alterations in the draft, if needed, when objections are filed - It will be thereafter that the decree holder is to deliver it to the court with the alterations if any made by the court, on proper stamp paper, if required and the execution of the document is effected by the court or the officer appointed. (Para 10-11) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - Order XXI Rule 34 cannot be diluted and any such departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further litigation. (Para 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIX - Interim injunctions - While considering the question of grant of interim injunction, the courts are required to consider the three tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury .(Para 36) Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 144 - Appeal against Division Bench direction that the State shall be at liberty to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners - Dismissed - By applying Section 144 CPC also, the amount paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been set aside by the Division Bench is required to be refunded/returned by the original writ petitioners. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against High Court order setting aside criminal proceedings on the ground that taking cognizance by magistrate was barred by limitation - Allowed - The High Court made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009 - Rejected the contention that Sarah Mathew's case requires reconsideration on the ground that some of the factors related with Chapter XXXVI CrPC have not been considered. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Magistrate to have due regard to both the reports, the initial report which was submitted under Section 173(2) as well as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). It is thereafter that the Magistrate would have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused have committed an offence. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 436 - 439 - Bail - Grant of bail, though a discretionary order, requires such discretion to be exercised in a judicious manner and on the application of certain settled parameters. More heinous the crime, greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though the exercise also depends on the factual matrix of the matter - The Court, amongst others, must consider the prima facie view of whether the accused has committed the offence, nature of the offence, gravity, likelihood of the accused obstructing in any manner or evading the process of justice. Grant of bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and protection of individual liberty in a criminal case. The prima facie examination is on the basis of analysis of the record, and should not be confused with examination in detail of the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter VIII - Powers of the Executive Magistrate to take bond for maintaining security and for keeping the peace and good behaviour by the citizens - Procedure explained. (Para 7) Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 122 - Appeal against High Court judgment which affirmed order passed against appellant by an Executive Magistrate under Section 122(1)(b) CrPC - Dismissed - The order passed by is after following the procedure, so prescribed and affording due opportunity to the appellant. Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - There can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences - Once an FIR has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR - Barring situations in which a counter case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation". (Para 12) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 188 - The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India - When a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country, going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts - If the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. (Para 13, 14) Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the order passed by Magistrate summoning the appellant who was not named in police report - Dismissed - The name of the accused/appellant had transpired from the statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC - No error in the order of the Magistrate. Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - For summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to the conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police some other persons are involved in the offence. These materials need not remain confined to the police report, charge sheet or the F.I.R. A statement made under Section 164 of the Code could also be considered for such purpose. (Para 21) Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - Jurisdiction to issue summons can be exercised even in respect of a person whose name may not feature at all in the police report, whether as accused or in column (2) thereof if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are materials on record which would reveal prima facie his involvement in the offence. (Para 20) Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - It is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Appeal against the High court order which set aside the Trial Court order refusing to summon appellant under Section 319 CrPC - High Court even failed to consider the basic principles laid down by this Court while invoking Section 319 of the Code, which has been considered by the learned trial Judge. Sagar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Sagar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Appeal against High Court order which recalled an order passed by it in a criminal case - Dismissed - This application for recall of the order was maintainable as it was an application seeking a procedural review, and not a substantive review. Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Application for recall of the order maintainable when it is an application seeking a procedural review, and not a substantive review. Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against Acquittal - Reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned - With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced - If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal. (Para 7) Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 394 - Abatement of Criminal Appeal - Appellant died during pendency of appeal - The counsel, as an Amicus, cannot be treated as a near relative of the deceased appellant/convict - The application for continuance of the appeal having not been made within 30 days or even thereafter by any near relative, as per the provision of Section 394 of the Cr.P.C., this appeal would abate. Yeruva Sayireddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Ordinarily, no such mandatory order or directions should be issued while rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail that the accused person has to be arrested - When the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter. Whether the investigating agency requires custodial interrogation or not, is also to be primarily examined by that agency alone. We say no more. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against Bail granted by the High Court in a murder case - Allowed - The High Court has granted bail to the ­accused by passing a very cryptic and casual order, de hors cogent reasoning. We find that the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the accused. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - It is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. (Para 26) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - The Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. (Para 26) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - When bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the CrPC. However, if no new circumstances have arisen since the grant of bail, the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima ­facie case against the accused. (Para 29) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464 - Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Mere non-framing of a charge under Section 149 on face of charges framed against appellant would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to them - Mere defect in language, or in narration or in the form of charge would not render conviction unsustainable, provided the accused is not prejudiced thereby - If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned. [Referred to Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 546] (Para 7) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - The relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scope of inherent power to quash FIR/Criminal proceedings discussed. (Para 14-20) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - There being no bar to exercise of jurisdiction of Criminal Courts including the High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is competent to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC. (Para 14) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 - What the 102nd Amendment prohibits the State from undertaking is identifying a caste as SEBC or including or excluding a community from the list notified by the President - Determining the extent of reservation for a community amongst the list of Most Backward Classes does not amount to identification. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 - The 105th Amendment Act cannot be said to be a validating amendment- Prospective in operation - Identifying certain communities which are to be deemed as SEBCs for the purposes of the Central Government and the States, respectively, cannot be said to be a matter of procedure. The procedural aspect of the 102nd Amendment Act and the 105th Amendment Act is only the manner of publication of the lists of SEBCs, whereas the substantive element of the said amendments is identifying and recognising certain communities as SEBCs. (Para 29) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 - The scheme of the Constitutional Amendment is not to take away legislative competence of the State Legislatures to legislate on the subject of local Government but it is more to ensure that the three tiers of governance are strengthened as part of democratic set up. (Para 8) State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Consent of the parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved. (Para 29-31) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Affirmed the judgment of the High Court but refused to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution the marriage declared as dissolved. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Appeal against high Court set aside the orders passed by authorities refusing to confirm auction in favour of highest bidder - Allowed - The High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over the decision of the competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the interference otherwise has to be very minimal. State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Appeal against High Court order that set aside order issued by Municipality cancelling work order to appellant - Allowed - In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order. Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial review in contractual / commercial / tenders / public auction matters - Superior Courts should not interfere in the matters of tenders, unless substantial public interest was involved or the transaction was malafide - Plausible decisions need not be overturned - Latitude ought to be granted to the State in exercise of its executive power. However, allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety would be enough grounds for Courts to assume jurisdiction and remedy such ills - Opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, not to be interfered with unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 19 -26) State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Specific Performance - No writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8) Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - After a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed with NOIDA, the petitioner made a representation to it requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed - High Court directed NOIDA to consider the representation - NOIDA rejected it - This was again challenged before High Court by the Petitioner - High Court dismissed writ petition - SLP challenging the said High Court judgment dismissed. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - Delay and latches - High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly - Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation - If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation - Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. (Para 4, 5) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. (Para 6) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227- Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India not justified in upsetting the finding of fact rendered by the Appellant Authority. Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi -One of the measures to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court. (Para 22) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general - Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts - Many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. (Para 21) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Appeal against High Court Judgment allowing PIL in the matter of a title claim between a private party and the State - Allowed - The State clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants - Institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Levy of Excise Duty - Appeal against High Court order which set aside demand notice issued to pay excise duty on the weak spirit, which was more than 2% allowable wastage - Dismissed - Wastage generated has been found to be unfit and unsafe for potable purpose - the State has power to levy excise duty only in respect of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240

Constitution of India, 1950 - Levy of Excise Duty - State Legislature has no authority to levy duty or tax on alcohol, which is not for human consumption as that could be levied only by the Centre - State only empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor for human consumption. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240

Constitution of India, 1950 - Permissibility of sub-classification amongst backward classes as has been done in the 2021 Act cannot be contested. Reasonableness of sub-classification is a separate question. (Para 33) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh) - Appeal against High Court order refusing to interfere with confiscation order passed by District Magistrate despite acquittal in connected criminal case under MP Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act - Allowed - The order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the appellant's truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A - The District Magistrate's order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Constitution of India, 1950 - Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021 declared unconstitutional - Upheld the Madras High Court judgment holding that there is no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs, and therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16. (Para 74) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The conclusion of the High Court that determining the extent of reservation amongst the 'Backward Classes of citizens' can be done only by amending the 1994 Act in view of Article 31-B is unsustainable - State Legislature did not lack competence to enact a legislation for determining the extent of reservation amongst the MBCs and DNCs. (Para 46) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court has committed an error in holding that the 2021 Act is violative of Article 342-A. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The State's competence to enact the 2021 Act with the Governor's assent cannot be faulted with nor can the State be compelled by the courts to reserve the 2021 Act for assent of the President. (Para 51) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - There is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act. (Para 71) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - An order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Supreme Court exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution may not refuse to interfere in a case where three Courts have gone completely wrong. The jurisdiction generated in an appeal under Article 136 is undoubtedly rare and extraordinary. Article 136 of the Constitution only confers a right to obtain special leave in rare and extraordinary cases. (Para 11) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial. (Para 71-72) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - While caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the State Government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. (Para 54) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14-16 - Substantial Equality - Discrimination both direct and indirect is contrary to the vision of substantive equality -The true aim of achieving substantive equality must be fulfilled by the State in recognizing the persistent patterns of discrimination against women once they are in the work place. (Para 46-48) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Appeal against High Court judgment which held that though the LARGESS Scheme was terminated, since the respondent's father superannuated on 1 January 2015 prior to 27 January 2017, the benefit of the scheme could be extended to him in terms of the notification dated 28 September 2018- Allowed - The impugned judgment issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - By following the procedure established by law, the personal liberty of the citizens can be dealt with. (Para 8) Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Preservation of family life is an incident of Article 21. (Para 51) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which set aside the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent employee from service following a disciplinary enquiry on charges of bribery - Allowed - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employee - The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - The courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate - Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved - While exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The decision are also disturbed when it is found to be ailing with perversity. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. (Para 17) State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Regularization - High Court directed the State to consider the cases of some temporary employees for regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts - Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction - No such order of absorption and/or regularisation even if required for creating supernumerary posts and not to treat the same as precedent could have been passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 6, 10) State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 24 Mar 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 41(ha) - In view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the Writ Court. (Para 19-21) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order - disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Appeal - Appeal against High Court judgment which dismissed special (writ) appeal without independent reasoning - Allowed - This is not the manner in which the Division Bench should have decided and disposed of the writ appeal. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction vested in it - Remanded for fresh consideration. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Appeal - There must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal. (Para 6) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual Matters - Interim orders - Any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. (Para 26) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. (Para 23) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - Multiple layers of exercise of jurisdiction also delay the final adjudication challenging the grant of tender. It would be open to the High Courts or the Hon'ble Chief Justice to entrust these petitions to a Division Bench of the High Court, which would avoid at least hearing by one of the forums. (Para 27) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - Interpretation of terms of the contract is that the question as to whether a term of the contract is essential or not is to be viewed from the perspective of the employer and by the employer - Satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids -The Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. (Para 17, 22, 23) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope of interference by the supervisory Court on decisions of the fact-finding forum is limited - Supreme Court was of the view that there was overstepping of this boundary by the High Court - in its exercise of scrutinising the evidence to find perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, there was re-appreciation of evidence itself by the High Court - the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 had gone deep into the factual arena to disagree with the final fact-finding forum - the High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 233, 235 - The High Courts are well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to sub-serve this - The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment - Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confront challenges to liberty and justice. (Para 26) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Confiscation - By an order of confiscation, a person is deprived of the enjoyment of his property - Therefore, it is necessary for the State to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public purpose or public interest. (Para 17) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Administrative instructions can supplement rules which are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in a manner which does not lead to any inconsistencies. Executive instructions may fill up the gaps in the rules. But supplementing the exercise of the rule making power with the aid of administrative or executive instructions is distinct from taking the aid of administrative instructions contrary to the express provision or the necessary intendment of the rules which have been framed under Article 309. (Para 32) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Where there is a conflict between executive instructions and rules framed under Article 309, the rules must prevail. In the event of a conflict between the rules framed under Article 309 and a law made by the appropriate legislature, the law prevails. Where the rules are skeletal or in a situation when there is a gap in the rules, executive instructions can supplement what is stated in the rule. (Para 28) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 311 - Civil Post - Holding a license to run the fair price shop cannot be said to be holding a civil post. Manju Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 311(2) - Judicial Service - When the Government had, on enquiry, come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the appellant was unsuitable for the post he held on probation, this was clearly by way of punishment and, hence, the appellant would be entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 50) Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - No express prohibition stems from Article 31-B on the powers of the State Legislature to legislate on matters incidental to statutes placed within the Ninth Schedule - State has the power to amend or repeal a statute which has been placed under the Ninth Schedule - Any amendment made to a statute placed under the Ninth Schedule does not get protection under Article 31-B, unless the said amendment is also included in the Ninth Schedule. (Para 44) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 - Placing of the 1994 Act under the Ninth Schedule cannot operate as a hurdle for the State to enact legislations on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act. Legislative competence of the State Legislature can only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and Article 31-B does not stipulate any such express prohibition on the legislative powers of the State. (Para 75) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Policy Matters - Court in the exercise of judicial review cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy. Yet, the legitimacy of a policy can be assessed on the touchstone of constitutional parameters. Moreover, short of testing the validity of a policy on constitutional parameters, judicial review can certainly extend to requiring the State to take into consideration constitutional values when it frames policies. The State, consistent with the mandate of Part III of the Constitution, must take into consideration constitutional values while designing its policy in a manner which enforces and implement those values. (Para 43) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review in Policy Matters - Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy. Further, an increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue. This is not to say that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy. (Para 46) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Writ Of Quo Warranto - The jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued when a person is holding the public office does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (Para 9, 9.1) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgments dismissing writ petitions reopening of the assessment/re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act - Allowed - Orders are bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents - Remanded. Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it is the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons. (Para 2.1) Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 338B - The requirement of consultation with an expert constitutional body is indeed mandatory and it would be fatal to disregard the provision - Article 338- B(9) does not stop the State from enacting a legislation in furtherance of a major policy matter but states that the State Government shall consult the Commission on such matters - The consequence of disregarding a mandatory consultation provision would normally render the legislation void as it is in breach of an obligatory requirement to consult an expert constitutional body. (Para 75-76) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 73, 162 - A policy decision taken in terms of the power conferred under Article 73 of the Constitution on the Union and Article 162 on the States is subservient to the recruitment rules that have been framed under a legislative enactment or the rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. (Para 29) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 34,62 List II & Entry 40 of List I of Seventh Schedule - 'Lotteries' is a species of gambling activity and hence within the ambit of 'betting and gambling' as appearing in Entry 34 List II - It is only lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of State in terms of Entry 40 of List I which are excluded from Entry 34 of List II - If lotteries are conducted by private parties or by instrumentalities or agencies authorized, by Government of India or the Government of State, it would come within the scope and ambit of Entry 34 of List II - The State Legislatures have the power to tax lotteries under Entry 62 of List II. (Para 124) State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

Constitution of India, 1950; Part IXA - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009; Section 5, 329 - The scheme of Part IXA does not contemplate a separate notification under Article 243Q of the Constitution and thereafter under Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. As Section 5 of the Municipalities Act is not inconsistent with any provisions of Article 243Q of the Constitution, therefore, two notifications are not contemplated or warranted under the Scheme of Part IXA or the Municipalities Act - The State Government is competent to divide the Municipalities in the State into classes according to their income or other factors like population or importance of the local area and other circumstances as provided under Section 329 of the Municipalities Act. (Para 16-17) State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Constitution of India, 1950; Part IXA - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009; Section 5, 329 - Appeal against Rajasthan High Court set aside a notification declaring Gram Panchayat Roopbas, District Bharatpur as Municipal Board on the ground that no public notification as contemplated under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India has been produced specifying Gram Panchayat Roopbas as a "transitional area" and thus, it cannot be declared as a Municipal Board - Allowed - State Government had exercised powers to establish Municipality in terms of Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Contempt petition filed alleging non-compliance of direction issued to the respondents to comply with and deposit the award amount - Respondents held guilty of contempt - Not only have the contemnors unreasonably delayed and defaulted in compliance of the orders of this Court without explaining the cause for such default, or seeking extension of time for compliance; but they have also sought to avoid compliance of the order, even after taking benefit of the extended time period granted for compliance of the same - Respondents shall be heard on sentence. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Jurisdiction of a Court under the Act, would not cease, merely because the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, is executable under law, even without having recourse to contempt proceedings - Irrespective of whether or not a decree is executable, the question to be considered by this Court in determining whether a case for contempt has been made out was, whether, the conduct of the contemnor was such as would make a fit case for awarding punishment for contempt of Court. (Para 13.2,13.3, 15.1) Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - When a party which is required to comply with the terms or directions in an order has not done so within such time as stipulated in the order, two options are available to the party which was required to comply with such order: (a) give an explanation to the Court as to the circumstances due to which the party could not comply with the order of the Court; (b) seek for further time to comply with the order of the Court. If a delay has occurred in complying with the terms of an order and the party which was to comply with the order has not resorted to either of the two aforestated options, then, the party responsible for delay in compliance, may be held to have committed contempt. (Para 15) Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Contract Act, 1872 - Abandonment - The refusal of a contractor to continue to execute the work, unless the reciprocal promises are performed by the other party, cannot be termed as abandonment of contract. A refusal by one party to a contract, may entitle the other party either to sue for breach or to rescind the contract and sue on a quantum meruit for the work already done. (Para 22) Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Member Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331

Contract Act, 1872 - Abandonment - Whenever a material alteration takes place in the terms of the original contract, on account of any act of omission or commission on the part of one of the parties to the contract, it is open to the other party not to perform the original contract. This will not amount to abandonment. Moreover, abandonment is normally understood, in the context of a right and not in the context of a liability or obligation. A party to a contract may abandon his rights under the contract leading to a plea of waiver by the other party, but there is no question of abandoning an obligation. (Para 19) Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Member Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 56 - Doctrine of Frustration discussed - The applicability of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act is not limited to cases of physical impossibility. (Para 41) Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 65 - Appeal against TDSAT order dismissing appellant's refund claim - Dismissed - In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1, the 2G licences which were granted by the Union of India, including to the appellant, were quashed - The appellant was the beneficiary of the "First Come First Serve" policy which was intended to favour a group of private bidding entities at the cost of the public exchequer. The contention of the appellant that it was exculpated from any wrongdoing by the judgment of this Court in CPIL (supra) is patently erroneous. Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 65 - Restitution - In adjudicating a claim of restitution, the court must determine the illegality which caused the contract to become void and the role the party claiming restitution has played in it. If the party claiming restitution was equally or more responsible for the illegality (in comparison to the defendant), there shall be no cause for restitution. (Para 52) Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Contract Act, 1872; Section 28 - Insurance - Condition of lodging Insurance claim within a period of one month, extendable by another one month is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and thus void. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sanjesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Court Fees Act, 1870; Section 7 - Appeal against High Court judgment which set aside Trial Court order to file the Court-fees on the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs as claimed by him in the Money suit for compensation- Allowed - A reading of the relief clause would make it abundantly clear that this was a money suit for compensation/damages and not falling under any of the categories mentioned in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, there would be no question at all for the applicability of Section 7(iv) of the Act. It would be a simple case of applicability of Section 7(i) of the Act and ad valorem Court-fees would have to be paid as per Schedule 1 entry. State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Court Fees Act, 1870; Section 7 - Once the suit in question is a money suit for compensation and damages falling under clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount claimed - It is only with respect to the category of suits specified in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act that the plaintiff has the liberty of stating in the plaint the amount at which relief is valued and Court-fees would be payable on the said amount. (Para 21) State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 292

COVID Death Compensation Claims - Apprehension about Fake Claims - Nobody can be permitted to avail the ex-gratia compensation by making a false claim and/or submitting the false certificate- National Disaster Management Authority /Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, permitted to carry out the random scrutiny of 5% of the claim applications by the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Maharashtra at the first instance - The concerned States directed to assist in carrying out the scrutiny of the claim applications as ordered above and submit all the necessary particulars of the respective claims that have been attended/processed to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, who shall carry out the scrutiny within a period of three months from today and submit the report before this Court. If it is found that anybody has made a fake claim, the same shall be considered under Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and liable to be punished accordingly. (Para 6, 6.1) Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 312

COVID Death Compensation Claims - Fixed outer limit of sixty days from today to file the claims for compensation in case the death occurred due to COVID-19 prior to 20.03.2022 - For future deaths, ninety days' time is provided from the date of death due to COVID-19 to file the claim for compensation. The earlier order to process the claims and to make the actual payment of compensation within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of claim is ordered to be continued - In case of extreme hardship any claimant could not make an application within the time prescribed, it will be open for the claimant to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee and make the claim through Grievance Redressal Committee which shall be considered by the Grievance Redressal Committee on case to case basis and if it is found by the Grievance Redressal Committee that a particular claimant could not make the claim within the stipulated time which was beyond their control his/her case may be considered on merits - Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ministry of Home Affairs – Union of India and all the concerned States are directed to give wide publicity to the present order through print and electronic media so that the claimants can know the time limit fixed by this Court for making claims. (Para 3-5) Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 312

Criminal Law - Appeal against Uttarakhand HC judgment convicting accused appellant under Sections 363, 366-B, 370(4) and 506 of the IPC, and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act- Dismissed - The offences alleged against the appellant were rightly invoked and fully substantiated. Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Criminal Trial - Appeal against High Court judgment reversing conviction of accused in a murder case - Allowed - The contradictions, if any, are not material contradictions which can affect the case of the prosecution as a whole - Delay of seven hours in lodging FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case - Conviction recorded by Trial Court restored. M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Criminal Trial - Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction of accused in a murder case - dismissed - The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - The fact that the trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during the appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal. Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused - motive not relevant in a case of direct evidence. Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Criminal Trial - Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. (Para 10) M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Criminal Trial - Murder - Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Appellant convicted under Section 376, 363, 366, 307, 354 and sentenced to life imprisonment sought modification of sentence- Sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment - Appellant has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 11 years as on date - The ends of justice would be met by directing that instead and in place of the sentence of life imprisonment which has been imposed for the conviction under Section 376, the appellant shall stand sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment. Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - In determining the quantum of sentence, the Court must bear in mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all other relevant circumstances including the age of the offender - The principles of restorative justice find place within the Indian Constitution and severity of sentence is not the only determinant for doing justice to the victims. (Para 7, 8) Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Criminal Trial - The court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal Trial - The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt. (Para 46) Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal Trial - Unnecessarily weightage shall not be given to some minor contradictions - Deposition of injured eye witness has a greater reliability and credibility. (Para 12) M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Customs Act, 1962; Section 129E - High Court which upheld the order passed by CESTAT finding that the appellant has not made pre-deposit - Dismissed - Rejected the contention of appellant that in view of the fact that the act relates to the year 2013, he must be governed by Section 129E prior to the substitution - When the appellant is not being called upon to pay the full amount but is only asked to pay the amount which is fixed under the substituted provision, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Customs Act, 1962; Section 129E - Under the new regime, the amount to be deposited to maintain the appeal has been reduced from 100% to 7.5% - The discretion which was made available to the appellate body to scale down the pre-deposit has been taken away - In regard to stay applications and appeals which were pending before any Appellate Authority prior to commencement of The Finance (No.2) Act 2014, Section 129E as substituted would not apply. (Para 8) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Customs Act, 1962; Sections 87, 130(2), 130E(b) - Dispute concerning an exemption cannot be equated with a dispute in relation to the rate of duty - Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption as claimed or not, such an issue cannot be said to be an issue relating, amongst other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty. (Para 4) Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Customs Act, 1962; Sections 87, 130(2), 130E(b) - SLP against High Court order which rejected preliminary objection to the appeal filed by Revenue holding that the principal question in the present case is, not in relation to the rate of duty but determining whether, vessel AE, is a foreign­ going vessel or not and if the vessel AE is a foreign ­going vessel, whether Section 87 of the Act would be applicable or not - Dismissed - With respect to such an issue, against the order passed by the CESTAT, the appeal would be maintainable before the High Court under Section 130 of the Act. Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Case - The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction - In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. (Para 13) State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Appeal against High Court order which directed that the interest @ 12% p.a. shall become payable from the period after expiry of one month from the date of the Commissioner's order - Allowed - While directing the employer to pay the interest from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner, the High Court has not at all considered Section 4A(3)(a) and has considered Section 4A(3)(b) only, which is the penalty provision - Claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner from the date of the incident. Shobha v. Chairman, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - The liability to pay the compensation would arise from the date on which the deceased died for which he is entitled to the compensation and therefore, the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner. (Para 4.1) Shobha v. Chairman, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal by Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd against an NGT order holding that its manufacturing units, which did not have prior Environmental Clearance (EC) could not be allowed to operate - Allowed - The question in this case is, whether a unit contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood to hundreds of people, which has been set up pursuant to requisite approvals from the concerned statutory authorities, and has applied for Ex post facto EC, should be closed down for the technical irregularity of want of prior environmental clearance, pending the issuance of EC, even though it may not cause pollution and/or may be found to comply with the required norms. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative, more so when the HSPCB was itself under the misconception that no environment clearance was required for the units in question. Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Environmental Clearance - Need to comply with the requirement to obtain EC is non-negotiable. A unit can be set up or allowed to expand subject to compliance of the requisite environmental norms. EC is granted on condition of the suitability of the site to set up the unit, from the environmental angle, and also existence of necessary infrastructural facilities and equipment for compliance of environmental norms. To protect future generations and to ensure sustainable development, it is imperative that pollution laws be strictly enforced. Under no circumstances can industries, which pollute, be allowed to operate unchecked and degrade the environment. (Para 62) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Ex post facto Environmental Clearance - The 1986 Act does not prohibit Ex post facto Environmental Clearance - It should not be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances taking into account all relevant environmental factors. Where the adverse consequences of denial of Ex post facto approval outweigh the consequences of regularization of operations by grant of Ex post facto approval, and the establishment concerned otherwise conforms to the requisite pollution norms, Ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law, in strict conformity with the applicable Rules, Regulations and/or Notifications. The deviant industry may be penalised by an imposition of heavy penalty on the principle of 'polluter pays' and the cost of restoration of environment may be recovered from it - An establishment contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood ought not to be closed down only on the ground of the technical irregularity of not obtaining prior Environmental Clearance irrespective of whether or not the unit actually causes pollution. (Para 63, 65,) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Environmental Law - Appeal against NGT order directing that mining activity shall not be permitted within and in the vicinity of Simplipal - Hadagarh - Kuldiha – Simplipal elephant corridor - Disposed of - Implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan as suggested by the Standing Committee of NBWL before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone - Complete the process of declaration of the traditional elephant corridor as conservation reserve expeditiously. The mining operations of 97 quarries shall be permitted only thereafter. Binay Kumar Dalei v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There is no absolute proposition of law that in a case when at the time when the dying declaration was recorded, there was no emergency and/or any danger to the life, the dying declaration should be discarded as a whole (Para 6) - Merely because the weapon used is not recovered cannot be a ground not to rely upon the dying declaration. (Para 9) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 45, 47, 73 - Appeal against Orissa High Court judgment which quashed the order taking cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the opinion of the handwriting expert on the disputed signatures was non-conclusive - Allowed. Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 45, 47, 73 - Opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of providing the signature and handwriting of a person - The signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73. Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Madras High Court Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996 - Rule 52 - A free copy may be supplied as per the requirement under the Family Courts Act but that is a far cry from holding that an appeal can be carried without a certified copy - Rejected argument that that an appeal can be maintained within thirty days even if it is in the absence of a certified copy. (Para 22, 23) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19, 20 - Limitation Act, 1963- Section 12, 29(2) - The period spent in obtaining the copy can be excluded in calculating the period of limitation to file matrimonial appeals under Family Courts Act - Nothing inconsistent in Section 12 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act - Section 20 will not override the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - The Family Courts Act is not a standalone Act. It draws sustenance from Acts like the Hindu Marriage Act. This is for the reason that a petition within the meaning, for instance, of the Hindu Marriage Act, after a Family Court is established in India, is to be dealt with by the Family Court, on the grounds as provided under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Section 15 - Filing of appeal must be treated as having been presented within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act. The argument that not only must the appellant file the appeal, or prefer the appeal or present the appeal, but he must also ensure that the appeal comes on the judicial side of the High Court is clearly without any basis. (Para 27) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Appeal against Gujarat High Court judgment extending the immunity under the "Income Declaration Scheme" (IDS) to an assessee who was not the declarant under the scheme - Allowed - The High Court fell into error, in holding that the sequitur to a declaration under the IDS can lead to immunity (from taxation) in the hands of a non-declarant. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. MR Shah Logistics, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 194A(1) - Any person who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash/cheque or draft whichever is earlier deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force - the Union Bank of India did not deduct TDS at source while paying interest to Agra Development Authority, but subsequently deducted and deposited the same within the financial year. Union Bank of India v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) - Provided for exemption from mandate of Section 194A(1), inter alia, for paying interest to such corporations as notified by the Central Government - Central Government vide notification dated 22.10.1970 notified corporation established by a statute for the purpose of exemption - Applying the same principle as in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur And Anr. v. Canara Bank (2018) 9 SCC 322, the Apex Court permitted Agra Development Authority to be considered as a corporation established by a statute - Therefore, Union Bank of India was eligible for the exemption. Union Bank of India v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which held that an employer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output - Disposed - The impugned judgment protects the interest of the appellant and the workmen by prescribing the right procedure which should be followed in case the appellant is of the opinion that the workmen, though present on duty, are not working and are not giving the agreed production on the basis of which wages and incentives have been fixed. Bata India Ltd. vs. Workmen of Bata India Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appeal challenging NCLAT order which reversed the order of the NCLT wherein it had held that the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not time-barred - Allowed - The failure of the NCLAT as the first appellate authority to look into a very vital aspect such as this, vitiates its order, especially when NCLT has recorded a specific finding of fact - Remanded. S.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Court allowed withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a builder in an application filed by three homebuyers in view of a settlement plan agreed upon by the majority of them. In the larger interest of the homebuyers, the Apex Court exercised power under Article 142 to permit withdrawal of the CIRP proceedings and set aside all matters pending between the parties. Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The object and purpose of 14 the IBC is not to kill the company and stop/stall the project, but to ensure that the business of the company runs as a going concern. (Para 12) Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12A - At any stage before a COC is constituted, a party can approach NCLT/Adjudicating Authority directly and the Tribunal may in exercise of its powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, allow or disallow an application for withdrawal or settlement - In an appropriate case and where the case is being made out and the NCLT is satisfied about the settlement, may permit/allow an application for withdrawal or settlement. Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12A - Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 - This provision is held to be directory depending on fact of case. Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Interim Directions - Appeal against Punjab and Haryana HC interim directions issued against OLX - Allowed -There was no occasion for the High Court to pass these directions; and more particularly, without hearing the appellant. OLX India BV v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Interpretation of Statutes - it is the duty of the court to avoid a head­-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner so as to harmonise them - when two conflicting provisions in an Act cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both - if the court has a choice between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, such an interpretation will have to be avoided - an interpretation, which will result in anomaly or absurdity, should be avoided - the statute has to be interpreted in such a manner that it preserves its workability. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Interpretation of Statutes - Service Law - When the rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation. (Para 13) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Judgments - High Court dictated operative portion of the order on 06.11.2019 but the final order was dictated only on 15.03.2020 i.e. after 4 months and it typed out and corrected on 15.04.2020 - Supreme Court observed that it has repeatedly frowned upon the aspect of the oral orders being passed. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judgments - Practice of pronouncing final order without a reasoned judgment - Serious difficulties are caused on account of the said practice - Even if such oral orders were to be pronounced, it is expected that they are either dictated in Court or at least must follow immediately thereafter to facilitate the aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher Court. (Para 2-3) Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judgments - Words and phrases and/or sentences in a judgment cannot be read in the manner of a statute, and that too out of context. (Para 47) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Judicial Service - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which refused to interfere with cancellation of appointment of appellant judicial officer who could not join before prescribed date due to nationwide lockdown imposed in view of covid-19 pandemic - Allowed - It is not a case where there is a complete dearth of any explanation by the candidate - There was considerable confusion also about what a person could do and what a person could not do during the time of the lockdown. It was an unprecedented situation which affected the nation - Impugned notification quashed and appointment restored - The appellant will not be entitled to claim seniority / backwages. Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Judicial Service - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld discharge of a judicial officer - Allowed - Charges filed against the appellant are vague in nature and that absolutely no details have been provided regarding the said allegation of passing the bail order for extraneous considerations/ ulterior motive - Even if appellant's act is considered to be negligent, it cannot be treated as "misconduct" - The appellant be reinstated with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority, but will be entitled to be paid only 50% backwages, which may be paid within a period of four months. Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Judicial Service - Delhi Higher Judicial Service - In order to obviate any further litigation and uncertainty, we permit the High Court as a one-time measure to allow those candidates who were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 to participate in the ensuing DHJS examinations. (Para 29) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Judicial Service - Delhi Higher Judicial Service - The deletion of the minimum age requirement of 35 years in 2019 may have been guided by the need to attract a larger pool of applicants to DHJS. But the reinstatement of a minimum age requirement of 35 years is a matter of policy. This conforms to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. (Para 27) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Judicial Service - Discharge of Judicial Officer - Negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct - Relief-oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer- Every judicial officer is likely to commit mistake of some kind or the other in passing orders in the initial stage of his service, which a mature judicial officer would not do. However, if the orders are passed without there being any corrupt motive, the same should be over-looked by the High Court and proper guidance should be provided to him. (Para 69, 54) Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - A consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record - In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation. (Para 5) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Appeal against Karnataka HC judgment that enhanced the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land on the basis of a Consent award - Allowed - The consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in case of another acquisition - The High Court has not at all considered whether the lands acquired in the present case is similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of the said Consent award. Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Awarding of fair compensation to the landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - The claimant whose land is acquired is entitled to the fair market value of his land. (Para 3.1) Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - There may be different market prices/compensation with respect to different lands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, which is on a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at a proximity to a highway may have a different market price than the land which is situated in a different location/interior of the village and which might not have a good potential for development. (Para 6) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Karnataka) - Beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural lands - In construing the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory - Most of the tenants are villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding cases under the Act. (Para 23, 28) Nadakerappa v. Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332

Legal maxim - Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex - Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself. (Para 25) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Legal Maxims - Nemo dat quod non habet - No one can confer a better title than what he himself has. (Para 19) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Legislation - Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. (Para 9) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Legitimate Expectation - A facet of Article 14 of the Constitution - The doctrine of legitimate expectations can be invoked if a representation made by a public body leads an individual to believe that they would be a recipient of a substantive benefit. (Para 26) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Letters Patent (Calcutta High Court); Clause 15 - Appeal against Division Bench order of the Calcutta High Court which allowed Letters Patent appeal against a Single Judge order which directed defendants to file affidavit­ in ­opposition and postponed the hearing of the application seeking injunction - Allowed - Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of ad­ interim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a 'judgment' inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad­ interim injunction or not. As such, the order passed by the Single Judge did not contain the traits and trappings of finality - The appellate court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Single Judge to decide as to whether the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are made out in the case or not. Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Letters Patent (Calcutta High Court); Clause 15 - Whether an order impugned would be a 'judgment' within the scope of Clause 15 of Letters Patent, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case - For such an order to be construed as a 'judgment', it must have the traits and trappings of finality - It must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, which works serious injustice to the party concerned. Each and every order passed by the Court during the course of the trial, though may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a 'judgment'. If such is permitted, the floodgate of appeals would be open against the order of Single Judge. Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Limitation Act, 1963 - Appeal against Gauhati High Court judgment which held that the Limitation Act was applicable in the State of Mizoram and that Section 5 did not apply to suits, but only to appeals and to applications except for applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code - Dismissed - The High Court rightly set-aside the impugned order of Trial Court holding that it could not have condoned the delay of 325 days in filing the Money Suit. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Limitation Act, 1963 - Limitation Act applicable in the State of Mizoram with effect from 21.01.1972. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 29(3) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - The word 'proceedings' within the meaning of Section 29(3) is to be confined to the original proceeding and not appellate proceedings. (Para 21, 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - SLP Against High Court order which set aside the Trial Court order condoning delay of 465 days even after finding that delay has not been properly explained - Dismissed - Once it was found even by the trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - When it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone delay is required to be dismissed - he Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds - Still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. (Para 5) Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 does not apply to suits, but only to appeals and to applications except for applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code - Limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even though the statutory provision may sometimes cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party. The Court has no choice, but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Enhanced the compensation payable to over Rupees 50 Lakhs in a motor accident case where appellant has been rendered paralysed for life after he met with an accident as a 5 year old boy in 2010 - The appellant is not able to move his both legs and had complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence and bowel constipation and bed sore. Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - The determination of damages in personal injury cases is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation. (Para 12) Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of "light motor vehicle", could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a "transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class" having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs.? - Certain provisions were not noticed by the court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663 - The controversy in question needs to be revisited - referred to larger bench of more than Three Judges. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v Rambha Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 270

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 39A - Appointment of the Additional Municipal Commissioners - State Government created post and made appointment, but for Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation - Additional Municipal Commissioner to exercise power subject to the control of the Commissioner - Respondent no. 1 was an employee of the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - Imposition of penalties on municipal officer and servants - the Commissioner was empowered to suspend any officer, whether appointed by the Corporation or any other competent authority - In case of 'post equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of Assistant Commissioner', in terms of Section 56(1)(a) it is required to take prior approval from the Corporation - When a Transport Manager or officers appointed under Section 45 of the MMC Act is suspended by the Commissioner they are to inform the Corporation, which is to confirm suspension within a period of six months or else the suspension would come to an end - the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation will have the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Appeal against HC judgment upholding conviction of appellant under NDPS Act - Dismissed. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option to be searched before a Magistrate of a competent Gazetted Officer - Accused acquitted. (Para 9) Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, and physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for testing the opium. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

National Health Mission - Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme - Upheld Uttarakhand High Court judgment that under the NRHM/NHM Scheme, Ayurvedic Doctors will be entitled to parity in salary with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Singh Chauhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice is a part of the mandate of Article 14 itself - An exception to the principle would be a case where it is entirely futile to provide an opportunity. (Para 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - It is surprising that on the one hand, the bank managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was returned with the remark "account frozen" in respect of the same cheque. The bank account has been mentioned on the cheque and the endorsement to the effect "Account Frozen" will presuppose that an account existed". Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 118(a) - Presumption - Every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - Appeal against concurrent conviction in a cheque bounce case - Partly allowed - Upheld the conviction - Directed that sentence of imprisonment of one year vacated - Accused appellant sentenced to fine of Rs.5,000/- which he will deposit within a period of one month in the Trial Court. Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity - However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents, by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself, or through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant. (Para 9) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - Theory of 'probable defence' - The accused is not expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof - All which the accused needs to establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable defence has been established is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case on the conspectus of evidence and circumstances that exist - It becomes the duty of the Courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence. (Para 7, 9) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

One Rank One Pension - No constitutional infirmity in the OROP principle as defined by the communication dated 7 November 2015 - The definition of OROP is uniformly applicable to all the pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement - The cut-off date is used only for the purpose of determining the base salary for the calculation of pension- Varying pension payable to officers of the same rank retiring before and after 1 July 2014 either due to MACP or the different base salary used for the calculation of pension cannot be held arbitrary. (Para 49) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Partition - It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek the cancellation of the alienations- Alienees as well as the cosharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the co­sharer. It may also be open to the alienee, in the final decree proceedings, to seek the allotment of the transferred property, to the share of the transferor, so that equities are worked out in a fair manner. (Para 15) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Section 148 - Merely because three persons were chargesheeted / charged / tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC when involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. (Para 12) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Appeal against High Court acquitting some of the accused in a murder case - Allowed - There are no material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence. The presence of all the accused have been established and proved and the prosecution has also been successful in proving that all the accused shared the common intention - Trial Court judgment restored. State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Appeal against concurrent conviction of appellant by invoking Section 34 IPC - Allowed - The prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of Section 34 of IPC in this case - non­ examination of two crucial eye witnesses makes the prosecution case about the existence of a prior concert and pre­arranged plan extremely doubtful. Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Common Intention - Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not. (Para 4.2) State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Common intention pre­supposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds, a pre­arranged plan before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The criminal act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. In a given case, the plan can be formed suddenly. (Para 9) Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - "Entrustment" - It extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of 'trust'. (Para 24) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - "Property" - The definition in the section does not restrict the property to movables or immoveable alone - There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word 'property' to moveable property only when it is used without any qualification in Section 405. (Para 25) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 403, 415 - Appeal against Allahabad High Court order that refused to quash FIR registered against a tenant under Section 415,403 IPC - Allowed - No criminal offence is made out, even if we accept the factual assertions made in the complaint, which was registered as the First Information Report. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 403, 415 - Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406, 420 - Appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court refusing to quash an FIR registered against appellant - Allowed - Two simultaneous proceedings, arising from the same cause of action amounted to an abuse of the process of the law which is barred - It cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406,420 - Breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating - Fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating - A mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. (Para 34) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406,420 - In order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of cheating, the complainant had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused. (Para 42, 23-36) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Police Force - Discipline is the essence of the organization and structure of police force. No indulgence or latitude can be granted when the case is of violence and assault on the officer who had checked and reprimanded the respondent. To condone the misconduct will have ramifications. Discipline in the police force cannot be compromised. (Para 10) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Policy Decisions - A greater free play in the joints must be accorded to decisions of economic policy where the legislature or the executive is called upon to make complex choices which cannot always conform to a straitjacket or doctrinaire solution. (Para 58) Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Power of Attorney - The possession of an agent under a deed of Power of Attorney is also the possession of the Principal and that any unauthorized sale made by the agent will not tantamount to the Principal parting with possession. (Para 14) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Power of Attorney - The power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney - Ordinarily a Power of Attorney is to be construed strictly by the Court - Cannot amplify or magnify the clauses contained in the deed of Power of Attorney - The document should expressly authorize the agent, (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority. (Para 9, 17-18) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Practice and Procedure - Appeal against the High Court judgment which allowed writ petition answering only one issue, though four other issues were raised - Allowed - Remanded the matter to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions afresh and to adjudicate on all the other issues. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Practice and Procedure - Courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved - Adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue, would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. (Para 8.4) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Practice and Procedure - Forum shopping - Forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by the courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law. (Para 7-10) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Practice and Procedure - Frivolous appeals being filed against unappealable orders wasting precious judicial time - The courts in India are already over­burdened with huge pendency. Such unwarranted proceedings at the behest of the parties who can afford to bear the expenses of such litigations must be discouraged. (Para 37) Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Practice and Procedure - Judgment must have clarity on exact relief granted so as to avoid difficulty in execution. Pramina Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 273

Practice and Procedure - Ordinarily, before passing any order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case , it would be appropriate for the higher Court to appreciate that any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court; and progression of such other cases might suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein. Moreover, such petitions, even when moved before the higher Court, need to be examined from all angles. (Para 4, 5) M. Gopalakrishnan v. Pasumpon Muthuramalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 298

Practice and Procedure - Special Leave Petitions - Whenever documents/ additional documents are to be relied upon are to be produced and as far as possible, they must be filed along with the Special Leave Petition. If for any reason the same have not been filed along with the Special Leave Petition then in that case the same shall be filed well in advance before the Special Leave Petitions are heard by the Courts. By not filing the application for additional documents at the time of filing the Special Leave Petition but filing the same at the last moment and on the previous day of the posting of the Special Leave Petition and many a time late in the evening causes great inconvenience to the Court. (Para 2-4) Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mitrajyoti Deka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231

Practice and Procedure - The hierarchy of the trial court and the appellate court exists so that the trial court exercises its discretion upon the settled principles of law. An appellate court, after the findings of the trial court are recorded, has an advantage of appreciating the view taken by the trial judge and examining the correctness or otherwise thereof within the limited area available. If the appellate court itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of courts. (Para 29) Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Precedents - A decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court cannot be questioned on certain suggestions about different interpretation of the provisions under consideration - The binding effect of a decision of the Supreme Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced, was actually decided therein. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Precedents - A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. The judgment has to be construed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which the judgment has been rendered. Words, phrases and sentences in a judgment, cannot be read out of context. Nor is a judgment to be read and interpreted in the manner of a statute. It is only the law as interpreted by in an earlier judgment, which constitutes a binding precedent, and not everything that the Judges say. (Para 41) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 11 - In a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding. (Para 21) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 13A - The burden on the State authority to legally justify the confiscation order, cannot be shifted to the person facing the confiscation proceeding. (Para 19) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 11 - M.P Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012; Rule 5 - The confiscation proceeding, before the District Magistrate, is different from criminal prosecution. However, both may run simultaneously, to facilitate speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the means used for committing the offence. The District Magistrate has the power to independently adjudicate cases of violations under Sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B of the 2004 Act and pass order of confiscation in case of violation. (Para 21) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 23 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 155(2) - Whether Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. will apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of POCSO Act - Divergent views by judges in the Division Bench - Registry directed to place the matter before CJI for assignment before an appropriate Bench. Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301

Public Auction - Highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour - State or authority is not bound to accept the highest tender of bid. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held. (Para 18, 26) State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Public Employment - Appointment - There is no absolute right with the candidate to insist that he should be permitted to join beyond the date - But there is no law which would support the cancellation of the candidature of the selected candidate if he seeks to join beyond a particular point of time. (Para 18,16) Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Once the Act does not contemplate any further period for acquisition - The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State - The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain. (Para 7, 8) Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Appeal against judgment of Bombay High Court which gave planning Authority one year further time to acquire the land once reserved relying upon a Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors (2019) 14 SCC 411 - Allowed - The direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening the time line fixed under the Statute. Consequently, the direction to acquire the land within one year is set aside. Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Remand - An order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. (Para 25) Nadakerappa v. Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332

Reservation - Vacating earlier interim order, the Court refused to stay the G.O. dated 07.11.2020 issued in the State of Tamil Nadu purporting to reserve 50% seats at the Super Specialty level in Government Medical Colleges to in-service doctors - Expressed a prima facie view that States are competent to provide such reservation. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 294

Restitution - Advantages secured by a litigant, on account of orders of court, at his behest, should not be perpetuated - After the dismissal of the lis, the party concerned is relegated to the position which existed prior to the filing of the petition in the court which had granted the stay - No one can be permitted to take the benefit of the wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by the higher forum/court - No party should be prejudiced because of the order of the court. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Review Jurisdiction - Appeal against High Court order allowing review petitions - Allowed - Impugned order, allowing the review application is a cryptic and non-reasoned order - Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference - Remanded. Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306

Review Jurisdiction - While exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed. Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 4) Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Lapse of acquisition. (Para 9) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Schedule Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006 (Punjab); Section 7 - De­reservation for the reserved vacancy by the appointing authority is restricted. The said de­reservation may be possibly directed by the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes if it is expedient in public interest after recording satisfaction for such de­reservation. In the said contingency the department shall pass an order assigning those reasons. Thus, in the context of 2006 Act also the de­reservation or interchangeability may be possible with a rigour to exercise such power by the department, namely; Department of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and not by appointing authority. (Para 20) Mandeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - Appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of the said community alone. If any person other than a member of the reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an infringement of the rights of the genuinely deserving members of the said community - Even the applicants applying under the general categories could be adversely affected. (Para 9) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - The mere fact that the Law Giver has used the word 'voidable', cannot, in the context, detract from the gravity of the matter. The matter is not to be judged from the need for an act by the employer - In a situation where the law provides that the appointment is voidable, an act of the employer seeking to avoid the appointment is all that is required. (Para 9, 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to interfere with order terminating services of appellant after finding that she does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community to which she applied and was given appointment - Disposed of - To allow an usurper to continue being a palpable illegality and a constitutional sin, in the context, action by the competent authority terminating the services is perfectly valid - However, amounts sought to be recovered shall not be recovered from the appellant. Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order passed by SEBI restricting the respondent-company from accessing the capital market for one year etc - Dismissed - The general observations of the Tribunal that there is a right of cross-examination set aside. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 - There is a right of disclosure of the relevant material. However, such a right is not absolute and is subject to other considerations as indicated under paragraph 62(v) of the judgment in T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180. In this judgment, there is no specific discussion on the issue of a right to cross-examination but the broad principles laid down therein are sufficient guidance for the Tribunal to follow. (Para 35) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15Z - Scope and ambit of Statutory appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal orders to Supreme Court - The Supreme Court will exercise jurisdiction only when there is a question of law arising for consideration from the decision of the Tribunal. A question of law may arise when there is an erroneous construction of the legal provisions of the statute or the general principles of law. In such cases, the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of Section 15Z may substitute its decision on any question of law that it considers appropriate. (Para 20.1) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15Z, 15T - Question of law - Not every interpretation of the law would amount to a question of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15Z. The Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 15T, apart from acting as an appellate authority on fact, also interprets the Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder and systematically evolves a legal regime. These very principles are applied consistently for structural evolution of the sectorial laws. This freedom to evolve and interpret laws must belong to the Tribunal to subserve the Regulatory regime for clarity and consistency. These are policy and functional considerations which the Supreme Court will keep in mind while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 15Z. (Para 20.2) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - By paying the highest bid amount / reserve price, the borrower cannot be discharged of its liability of the outstanding due to be paid to the bank - Unless and until he was ready to deposit / pay the entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with the secured creditor, the borrower cannot be discharged from the entire liability outstanding. (Para 7.1) Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Service Law - All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. (Para 24) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which upheld School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Private School Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, setting aside the Enquiry Committee's order of dismissal on the sole ground that the President of the Management was not the President of the Enquiry Committee - Allowed - "Doctrine of Necessity" applied to sustain the findings of a Disciplinary Enquiry Committee against a School Principal, after noting that the President of the Committee had to be replaced due to ill health. Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Ramesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Service Law - Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside punishment of dismissal awarded by appellate authority and restoring lesser punishment awarded by disciplinary authority - Partly allowed - Punishment of dismissal imposed by the Appellate Authority was not grossly disproportionate to the quantum of the offence. Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Service Law - Appeal against the High Court judgment which upheld the cancellation of appointment of the appellant on the premise of non­disclosure of criminal case being instituted against him in the year 1997, when he was a juvenile - Allowed - the appellant was a juvenile when a criminal case was registered against him and was also a juvenile when the order of discharge was passed - This was indisputedly a special circumstance indeed which was not taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order of cancellation of his appointment - The seriatim of facts cumulatively indicate that the nature of information which was not disclosed by the appellant, in any manner, could be considered to be a suppression of material information. Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Service Law - Appeals against a Kerala High Court judgment which rejected the challenge against a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in 2018 withdrawing Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICT) - Dismissed - While we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Compassionate Appointments restricted to Class III/IV (group C/D) Posts - SC pulls up TN Govt over Group B Appointments. M. Kendra Devi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Service Law - Differential pay scale along with a process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are the factors to determine whether a particular post is the same as the other or a promotional one. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. (Para 25) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - MACP Scheme - Any revision of pay-structure or revision in other terms and conditions, of Central Government personnel cannot and do not automatically apply to the DDA; it has to consider the new or fresh scheme formulated by the Central Government, and adopt it, if necessary, after appropriate adaptation, to suit its needs. Therefore, the Central Government's MACP scheme did not apply to it automatically. (Para 29) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Service Law - MACP Scheme - That, some employees could have benefitted more under the ACP benefits, if the MACP scheme had not been introduced from an earlier date, is no ground to hold so and compel an executive agency to grant the claimed benefits. (Para 37) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Service Law - Norms applicable to the recruitment and conditions of service of officers belonging to the civil services can be stipulated in: (i) A law enacted by the competent legislature; (ii) Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution; and (iii) Executive instructions issued under Article 73 of the Constitution, in the case of civil services under the Union and Article 162, in the case of civil services under the States. (Para 28) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Pension - principles governing pensions and cut-off dates summarized - All pensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class - The benefit of a new element in a pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied. However, the scheme cannot bifurcate a homogenous group based on a cut-off date- Same principle of computation of pensions must be applied uniformly to a homogenous class - It is not a legal mandate that pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pension. The varying benefits that may be applicable to certain personnel which would also impact the pension payable need not be equalized with the rest of the personnel. (Para 48) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Service Law - Policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the requirement of the administration. (Para 26) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Promotion - A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process - There can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules - A right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. (Para 18) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Promotion - Seniority cum merit - A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection post. The employer's preference for a person with a clean service record can be well appreciated - Despite the difficulty in encapsulating the parameters for 'merit', a significant marker can be found in the unblemished record of the employee. (Para 25) Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Service Law - Promotion - Seniority cum merit - Appeal against High Court judgment that set aside resolution of Cantonment Board in favour of appellant in the matter of promotion to a selection post - Allowed - The unblemished service record of the appellant vis-à-vis the pending disciplinary proceedings against the respondent (eventually resulting in penalty), were taken into account - The higher pay in the same grade as per the applicable O.M., is a reliable indicator for determining inter-se seniority - All these circumstances in our opinion, weigh in favour of the appellant Rama Negi. Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Service Law - Promotion - Seniority cum merit - Parameters for determining promotion discussed - The totality of the service of the employee has to be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. (Para 19-20) Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Service Law - Promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Regularization - Appeal against High Court order which allowed writ petition filed by few employees claiming parity in date of regularization- Allowed - date of regularization and grant of pay scale is a prerogative of the employer/screening committee and no parity can be claimed in the matter of regularization in different years. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Chiggan Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296

Service Law - Regularization - State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 - The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (supra) was, (1) to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future, and (2) to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past and who have continued for a very long time. The decision of Umadevi (supra) may be applicable in a case where the appointments are irregular on the sanctioned posts in regular establishment. The same does not apply to temporary appointments made in a project/programme. (Para 8) State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 24 Mar 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Service Law - Regularization - The date from which regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view a number of factors like the nature of the work, number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made etc. The said decision will depend upon the facts of each year and no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of the earlier years. (Para 9-12) Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Chiggan Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296

Service Law - Services rendered by an employee on work charge basis cannot be considered for the grant of benefit of first time bound promotion if the employee is absorbed in service on a different pay-scale. (Para 3.1, 4) State of Maharashtra v Madhukar Antu Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Service Law - Suppression of information about criminal cases - This Court has held that giving of a wrong information disentitles the candidate for appointment -An employee desirous of holding civil post has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. Truthfulness cannot be made causality by an aspirant much more for a candidate aspiring to be a teacher. (Paras 10, 11 and 12) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Bheem Singh Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Service Law - Suppression of Material Information - The candidate who intend to participate in the selection process is required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before or after his induction into service - The person who has suppressed the material information, cannot claim unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service but, at the same time, he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be exercised in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of case on hand. The yardstick which has to be applied always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the competent authority considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due diligence of various aspects at the given time and no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. (Para 15) Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Service Law - The concept of "vested right". (Para 33) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Service Law - The manner in which and the period over which revisions should take place of pensions, salaries and other financial benefits is a pure question of policy. (Para 37) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Service Law - The prescription of a rule providing for a minimum age requirement or maximum age for entry into service is essentially a matter of policy - Determination of cut-offs lies in the realm of policy. (Para 25) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Service Law - Transfer Policy - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - A statutory mandate for recognizing the principle of reasonable accommodation for the disabled members of society - The formulation of a policy therefore, must take into account the mandate which Parliament imposes as an intrinsic element of the right of the disabled to live with dignity. (Para 49) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Transfer Policy - The State while formulating a policy for its own employees has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy. (Para 51) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a "golden handshake" between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. (Para 16) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Rules (Kerala); Rule 3 and 3A- Death Cum Retirement Gratuity - The pendency of the appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG - Rule 3A cannot be read in isolation 25 nor the latter part of it struck down as done by the High Court. Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A have to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment of the DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement. Even in the absence of these proceedings in certain eventualities the amounts can be recovered from the DCRG - Set aside Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in K. Chandran vs Local Self Government Department 2020 (5) KLT 669 (FB) (Para 37, 39) Local Self Government Department v. K. Chandran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 285

Societies Registration Act, 1860; Section 6 – Travancore ­ Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955; Section 9 - Unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit. (Para 15) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Suit for Permanent Injunction - Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law. (Para 11.1) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Suit for Permanent Injunction - Appeal against High Court judgment which dismissed second appeal to uphold Trial Court judgment which granted relief of permanent injunction while declining to grant the declaratory relief - Allowed - After having held that the plaintiff had no title and after dismissing the suit qua the cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction against defendant, the true owner. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Suit Permanent Injunction - Once the suit is held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief and when the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which was a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation. (Para 8.3) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 41(b) and (d) - Injunction can be refused when sought to restrain any person from institution or prosecuting any proceedings in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought - Injunction can be refused when sought to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Succession Act, 1925; Sections 299, 279, 276, 263 - Revocation of Letters of Administration - Appeal against High Court judgment which allowed application for revocation of the Letters of Administration on the ground that all the legal heirs were not impleaded in the proceedings for the grant of Letters of Administration - Dismissed - The catch is not to be found in the distinction between Section 276 and Section 278. It is to be found in Section 263 - Illustration (ii) under Section 263 deals with a case where "the grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited". Swaminathan v. Alankamony, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 276

Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 (Kerala) - Tax on Lotteries Act, 2004 (Karnataka) - Constitutional Validity upheld - Karnataka and Kerala State Legislatures possessed legislative competence to enact such Acts. (Para 124) State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

Tender - Owner should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless it is found to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made. The bidder/tenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him- It is an offer to the prospective bidder/tenderer to compete and submit the tender considering the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender document. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Tender - SLP challenging High Court order dismissing the writ petition challenging a tender condition - Dismissed - The clause cannot be said to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made and the same shall be applicable to all the bidders/tenderers and there is justification also shown providing such a clause. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122 - Gift - If the donor is making a gift out of his own free will and volition and is the exclusive owner of the properties, it is nobody's concern as to whom he gives the properties to - It is time that the Courts get out of this mindset, or possibly may have got out of this mindset by now on passing value judgments on relationships between parties in determining either a testamentary or non-testamentary disposition so long as the document executed is found to be validly executed. Mohinder Singh v. Mal Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 53A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction invoking Section 53A - Whether the plaintiffs shall be entitled to any relief under Section 53A or not has to be considered at the time of trial, but at this stage it cannot be said that the suit for the relief sought under Section 53A would not be maintainable at all and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Para 7.4) Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 53A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order VII Rule 11 - Appeal against judgment of Calcutta High Court which rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable as against the actual owner - Allowed - High Court has not considered the entire plaint averments - The plaintiffs have also prayed for the decree for a permanent injunction claiming to be in possession and the declaration and permanent injunction as such invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. When the suit is for a decree of permanent injunction and it is averred that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement and thereafter, they have developed the land and that they are in continuous possession since more than twelve years and they are also paying taxes to the Corporation, the cause of action can be said to have arisen on the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed. If that be so, the suit for decree for permanent injunction cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280

UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (now UGC Regulations, 2018) - Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 - Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions - Hope and trust that wiser counsel will now prevail and the State Government shall amend the State legislation accordingly on par with the UGC Regulations. (Para 16) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

University - Writ petition seeking to quash appointment of respondent as Vice Chancellor of Sardar Patel University - Allowed - The appointment of respondent found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force- Fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside the appointment of respondent as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University. Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

University Act, 1955 (Sardar Patel); Section 9 - Governor of Gujarat is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the Senate. Therefore, even as the head of the University, his advice was/is binding upon the University. (Para 13.4) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

University Vice Chancellor - Appointment and Selection - Prescribing the eligibility criteria shall not be left to the sweet will of the search committee. It may lead to arbitrariness and different search committees in absence of any statutory guidelines and/or prescription, may prescribe different eligibility criteria - While academic qualifications, administrative experience, research credentials and track record could be considered as basic eligibility requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice Chancellor would be one who is a true leader and a passionate visionary - Commitment to the quality and the objectives of the universities in particular and higher education system in general, are of course the deciding factors in selecting the right person. (Para 17.2) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(2)(b) - Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request for extension of time to complete investigation - The only competent authority to consider such request would be "the Court" as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA - Review petition filed by the State dismissed. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sadique, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 290

Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Uttar Pradesh) - Section 21(1)(a) - Ground of bona fide requirement does not strictly require the landlord to be "unemployed" to maintain an action. All that the provision contemplates is that the requirement so pleaded by the landlord must be bona fide. Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Uttar Pradesh) - Appeal against High Court which held that appellant-landlord could not maintain an application under Section 21(1)(a) since the son for whose benefit the release was sought is not unemployed - Allowed - It may be that the son of the appellant was having some income but that by itself would not disentitle him from claiming release of the premises on the ground of bona fide need. Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 83 - Revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso to Sub­section (9) of Section 83 is narrower than the jurisdiction that could have been conferred upon an appellate court. (Para 12) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Will - Suspicious Circumstances - Appeal against Madras HC order which set aside a probate granted to the appellant by the District Court in respect of two last Wills and Testaments - Allowed - Each one of the circumstances (recorded by the High Court), neither individually nor collectively creates a suspicion. Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Will - Suspicious Circumstances - The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances - Cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned - In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will. (Para 21, 25) Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Words and Phrases - Due process of law - Meaning discussed. (Para 12) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Words and Phrases - Question of law - Phrases such as, 'question of law', are open textual expressions, used in statutes to convey a certain meaning which the legislature would not have intended to be read in a pedantic manner. When words of the Sections allow narrow as well as wide interpretations, courts of law have developed the art and technique of finding the correct meaning by looking at the words in their context. (Para 14-16) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Words and Phrases - Void and Voidable - discussed. (Para 8, 9) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

1. Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

2. Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

3. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

4. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Chiggan Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296

5. Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

6. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

7. Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 293

8. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v Rambha Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 270

9. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

10. Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253

11. Bata India Ltd. vs. Workmen of Bata India Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325

12. Binay Kumar Dalei v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 233

13. Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280

14. Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

15. Chief Personnel Officer v. A Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277

16. Darshan Kaur Bhatia v. Ramesh Gandhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 246

17. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. MR Shah Logistics, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323

18. Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

19. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

20. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

21. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

22. Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287

23. Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

24. Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283

25. Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301

26. Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 312

27. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Bheem Singh Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339

28. Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

29. High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

30. Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

31. Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Ramesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327

32. Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222

33. Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

34. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

35. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

36. Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

37. Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315

38. Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

39. Local Self Government Department v. K. Chandran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 285

40. Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

41. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230

42. M. Gopalakrishnan v. Pasumpon Muthuramalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 298

43. M. Kendra Devi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 274

44. M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

45. Mandeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 262

46. Manju Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 311

47. Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297

48. Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330

49. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324

50. Mohinder Singh v. Mal Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 299

51. Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

52. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 294

53. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

54. N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

55. Nadakerappa v Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332

56. Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

57. Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229

58. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247

59. Neetu Singh v. State of UP, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281

60. OLX India BV v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 269

61. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sanjesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303

62. P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

63. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

64. Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

65. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

66. Pramina Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 273

67. Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317

68. Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mitrajyoti Deka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231

69. Puri Investments v. M/s. Young Friends and Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279

70. Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

71. Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

72. Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

73. Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306

74. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

75. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314

76. S.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 326

77. Sagar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265

78. Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268

79. Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267

80. Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321

81. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

82. Shobha v. Chairman, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271

83. Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Member Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331

84. Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

85. SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

86. Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316

87. State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313

88. State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

89. State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

90. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sadique, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 290

91. State of Maharashtra v Madhukar Antu Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 308

92. State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258

93. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240

94. State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 292

95. State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235

96. State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

97. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

98. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

99. State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Singh Chauhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 320

100. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

101. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

102. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

103. Swaminathan v. Alankamony, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 276

104. Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328

105. Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

106. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228

107. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

108. Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300

109. Union Bank of India v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278

110. Union of India v. Lt. Gen SK Sahni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310

111. Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

112. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

113. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264

114. Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

115. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

116. Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223

117. Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288

118. Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322

119. Yeruva Sayireddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 257