Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- April 18 to 24

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 17 - Appeal against Delhi HC order which confirmed the interim order passed by Arbitral Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit the rental amount from March, 2020 onwards and up to December, 2021 - Partly allowed - No order could have been passed by the Tribunal by way of interim measure on the applications filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act in a case where there is a serious dispute with respect to the liability of the rental amounts to be paid, which is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or considered by the Arbitral Tribunal - The appellant will therefore have to deposit the entire rental amount except the period for which there was complete closure due to lockdown. Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson and Company Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Appeal against Punjab & Haryana HC order which allowed to proceed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount - Order passed by the High Court permitting the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre­deposit of 75% of the awarded amount is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383

Arms Act, 1950; Section 27 - Supreme Court Patna High Court judgment which modified the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants- accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code to Section 324 IPC and confirming their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 56 - In terms of the principal part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, the interest would be awarded at the rate of 6 per cent. The award of interest at 9 per cent would be attracted only if the matter was covered by the proviso to the said Section 56 - Wherever a statute specifies or regulates the interest, the interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute - Wherever a statute, on the other hand, is silent about the rate of interest and there is no express bar for payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds. (Para 18-19) Union of India v. Willowood Chemicals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Circumstantial Evidence - Five golden principles regarding appreciation of evidence when the case of the prosecution hinges on the circumstantial evidence discussed. (Para 22) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 159 - Mere delay to send FIR to jurisdictional magistrate cannot be sole factor to reject prosecution's case. (Para 26, 27) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. (Para 25) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - First Information Report - A F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopedia of events. (Para 36) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2 (wa) - 'Victim' and 'complainant / informant' - It is not always necessary that the complainant / informant is also a 'victim', for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an 'informant', and similarly, a 'victim' need not be the complainant or informant of a felony. (Para 24) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2 (wa) - Victim's right to be heard - A 'victim' within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He / She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision - Where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. (Para 24, 25) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - No conviction could be based on the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused by leading independent and cogent evidence- When the accused makes inculpatory and exculpatory statements, the inculpatory part of the statement can be taken aid of to lend credence to the case of prosecution. (Para 23) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 (2) - Remission - An opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) - Relevant factors include assessing (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family - If the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595, the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh. (Para 21-24) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 (2) - Remission - It cannot be said that the opinion of the presiding judge is only a relevant factor, which does not have any determinative effect on the application for remission. The purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission - This is not to say that the appropriate government should mechanically follow the opinion of the presiding judge. (Para 21-22) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail - This discretion is not unfettered - bail must be granted after the application of a judicial mind, following well established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner. (Para 28) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - A recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that "the facts and the circumstances" have been considered - Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice. (Para 13) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against bail granted by Allahabad HC to murder accused - Allowed -This Court on account of the factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims' right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail, without depriving the Accused of his legitimate right to seek enlargement on bail on relevant considerations. Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against Rajasthan HC order granting bail to appellant accused of rape of his niece - Allowed - The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic, and does not suggest any application of mind. Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appellate Court required to analyze whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail looks at whether supervening circumstances have occurred warranting cancellation. (Para 11-15) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - No accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 40) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Parameters which must be considered while granting bail discussed - certain important factors that are always considered, inter­alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused - At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. (Para 8-10) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Principles that a Court must bear in mind while deciding an application for grant of bail discussed- A court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. (Para 30-33) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings - The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. (Para 30, 39) Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the asking - In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence - Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent on hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. (Para 26-39) Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 205 (2), 251 and 317 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; Section 138 - The judgment in M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim Apparels Ltd.: (2001) 7 SCC 401 does not deal with a claim for blanket exemption from personal appearance - Observations therein essentially co-relate with the facts of the said case - In appropriate cases the Magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel - Such discretion needs to be exercised only in rare instances and there ought to be good reasons for dispensing with the presence. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Bhanuj Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 205 (2), 251 and 317 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; Section 138 - SLP against Punjab & Haryana HC judgment which refused petitioner's claim of blanket exemption from personal experience in case under Section 138 NI Act -Dismissed - It is difficult to appreciate that in the case of the present nature, the petitioners seek to avoid appearance even once in terms of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Bhanuj Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Companies Act, 1956 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appeal against NCLAT order which dismissed appeals against NCLT order denying relief to appellant workmen/employees with regard to their claim relating to salary, which they claimed for the period involving CIRP- Partly allowed - (i) That the wages/salaries of the workmen/employees of the Corporate Debtor for the period during CIRP can be included in the CIRP costs provided it is established and proved that the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern during the CIRP and that the concerned workmen/employees of the corporate debtor actually worked during the CIRP and in such an eventuality, the wages/salaries of those workmen/employees who actually worked during the CIRP period when the resolution professional managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern, shall be paid treating it and/or considering it as part of CIRP costs and the same shall be payable in full first as per Section 53(1)(a) of the IB Code; (ii) considering Section 36(4) of the IB code and when the provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund are kept out of the liquidation estate assets, the share of the workmen dues shall be kept outside the liquidation process and the concerned workmen/employees shall have to be paid the same out of such provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund, if any, available and the Liquidator shall not have any claim over such funds. Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Companies Act, 1956 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Legislative History with respect to workmen/employee's dues towards the wages/salaries including the amount due and payable towards provident fund, gratuity and pension fund - discussed. (Para 8.2) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - A mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition would not mean that the view of the High Court has been approved by this Court. (Para 37) State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 39A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 304 - Right to a fair trial - Right to fair and speedy trial applies as much to the victim as the accused - While expediting the trial, it is imperative on the Court to see that the due procedure is followed during the course of trial. (Para 33) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Uttarakhand HC order which disposed a writ petition filed without deciding it on merits - Allowed and remanded - The order is 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. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of judicial review and interference of the courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality discussed. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petition, there is a duty cast upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Remission - The Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision is arbitrary in nature. The Court is empowered to direct the government to reconsider its decision. (Para 14) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Supreme Court allowed writ petition filed by a convict whose application for remission was rejected - Special Judge, Durg directed to provide an opinion on the application for remission afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning. Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Consumer complaint alleging vehicle defect - The limitation will run from the day the defect surfaces in a case. (Para 7) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 14(1) - If the reliefs granted in a consumer complaint fits any of the statutory provision contained in sub clause (1) of Section 14 of the Act, it would be well within the power and jurisdiction of the Forum to pass directions irrespective of the fact as to whether specifically certain reliefs have been claimed or not, provided that facts make out foundations for granting such reliefs. In any event, it is within the jurisdiction of the said forum to mould the reliefs claimed to do effective justice, provided the relief comes within the stipulation of Section 14(1) of the Act. (Para 15) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 14(1) - The failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a car­buyer of reasonable prudence should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect. And in computing such punitive damages, the capacity of the manufacturing enterprise should also be a factor - Such damages can be awarded in the event the defect is found to have the potential to cause serious injury or major loss to the consumer, particularly in respect of safety features of a vehicle. (Para 13) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Criminal Investigation - Delay in recording Section 161 CrPC Statement -An inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution's case but only to be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case. There may be adequate circumstances for not examining a witness at an appropriate time. However, non-examination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. It only causes doubt in the mind of the Court, which is required to be cleared. Similarly, a statement recorded, as in the present case, the investigation report is expected to be sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. A long, unexplained delay, would give room for suspicion. (Para 28) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Criminal Trial - A mere chart giving description of offences, numbers and the sections of the offences and about the nature of offences cannot be taken into account at the stage of conviction - If the Prosecution wanted the Court to take note of the fact that there were other matters in which accused were involved, the concerned Chargesheets should have been produced on record along with sufficient details including the judgments or orders of conviction. A mere chart cannot be taken as proof of the involvement of the accused in other crimes either at the stage of conviction or sentence. (Para 32, 22) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully established - Principles discussed. Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal Trial - Medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged - It is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. (Para 18) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Accused's involvement in other crimes may be a relevant factor provided the concerned material in the form of concluded judgments in the other matters are brought on record in a manner known to law. The established involvement in other matters would then certainly be relevant while dealing with the question whether the concerned accused is required to be dealt with sternly or leniently. (Para 23) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Restorative Justice - To give opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail - The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender. (Para 43) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Criminal Trial - The court conducting the trial/appeal is not only obliged to protect the rights of the accused but also the rights of the victim, and the interest of the society at large. The Judge presiding over the criminal trial has not only to see that innocent man is not punished but has also to see that guilty man does not escape. Both are his public duties required to be discharged very diligently to maintain the public confidence and uphold the majesty of the law. (Para 35) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Criminal Trial - The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions - Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. (Para 17) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Death Sentence - Appeal against Madhya Pradesh HC judgment which confirmed Death Sentence of man accused of rape and murder of 4 year old girl - Conviction upheld - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment - Imposed the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC. Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Death Sentence - Rarest of Rare doctrine discussed. (Para 41-42) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case of another employee higher punishment is warranted and inflicted by the disciplinary authority after due application of mind. There cannot be any negative discrimination. The punishment/penalty to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like the position of the employee in the department, role attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him. (Para 11) Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Evidence Act 1872; Section 27 - Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24 to 26. Admissibility under Section 27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered. This provision merely facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequence of information received from a person in custody, accused of an offense. Thus, it incorporates the theory of "confirmation by subsequent facts" facilitating a link to the chain of events. It is for the prosecution to prove that the information received from the accused is relatable to the fact discovered. The object is to utilize it for the purpose of recovery as it ultimately touches upon the issue pertaining to the discovery of a new fact through the information furnished by the accused. Therefore, Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24 to 26 meant for a specific purpose and thus be construed as a proviso. (Para 31) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Evidence Act 1872; Section 27 - The onus is on the prosecution to prove the fact discovered from the information obtained from the accused. This is also for the reason that the information has been obtained while the accused is still in the custody of the police. Having understood the aforesaid object behind the provision, any recovery under Section 27 will have to satisfy the Court's conscience. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the accused, by other means. The Court will have to be conscious of the witness's credibility and the other evidence produced when dealing with a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (Para 32) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Accused's statement recorded on a DVD and played in Court - Such a statement is in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act. If at all the accused were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code. Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence. (Para 20) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts - In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. (Para 19) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Evidence Act, 1882; Section 106 - Last Seen Together - Once the theory of "last seen together" was established, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to under which circumstances, he had parted the company of the victim -Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of the prosecution on the accused, nor requires the accused to furnish an explanation with regard to the facts which are especially within his knowledge, nonetheless furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of "last seen together" as propounded by the prosecution is proved against him, to know as to how and when the accused parted the company of the victim. (Para 26) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Hindu Undivided Family - Joint Family Property - Gift - A Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose' - Term 'pious purpose' is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose - A deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed 'out of love and affection' does not come within the scope of the term 'pious purpose'. (Para 13) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Hindu Undivided Family - Joint Family Property - Power to alienate only in three situations, namely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family - Where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained. (Para 12) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 20 - Even if it is found that the Corporate Debtor was not a going concern during the CIRP despite best efforts by the resolution professional, it cannot be presumed that still the Corporate Debtor was a going concern during the CIRP period. It depends on the facts of each case. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 36(4), 53(1) - Section 53(1) of the IB Code shall not be applicable to dues of the workmen/employees on account of provident fund, gratuity and pension - They are to be treated outside the liquidation process and liquidation estate assets under the IB Code. (Para 13) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 5(13), 53(1)(b), 53(1)(c) - Insolvency resolution process costs - Dues towards the wages/salaries of only those workmen/employees who actually worked during the CIRP are to be included in the CIRP costs - The wages and salaries of all other workmen / employees of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP who actually have not worked and/or performed their duties when the Corporate Debtor was a going concern, shall not be included automatically in the CIRP costs. Such dues will be governed by Section 53(1)(b) and Section 53(1) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. (Para 9-10) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Interim Orders - A stayed order is not wiped out from the existence, unless it is quashed - Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order. In other words, the interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings - It is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise. (Para 24) State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Interim Orders - Appeal against Allahabad HC order holding that the writ petitioner was not liable to pay interest as he was under the protection of the interim order (though the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and the notice demanding interest was issued after it) - Allowed - On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Interpretation of Statutes - To examine whether a provision is directory or mandatory, one of the tests is that the court is required to ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scheme of the statute. (Para 29) Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Interpretation of Statutes - Where a statute contains both general provision as well as specific provision, the later must prevail. (Para 8) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Interpretation of Statutes - Where the definition of a word is inclusive, as presaged by the adoption of the expression 'includes', it is prima facie extensive. (Para 32) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Judgment & Order - Reasoning is the life blood of the judicial system. That every order must be reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness. (Para 18) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Judicial Service (Delhi) - Order dated 21st March 2002 modified - 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through LDCE of Civil Judges having 7 years qualifying service [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division)] or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by Limited Departmental competitive Examination with those candidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge(Junior Division). (Para 17) All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Labour Law - An employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages- In the first instance, there is an obligation on the part of the employee to plead that he is not gainfully employed. It is only then that the burden would shift upon the employer to make an assertion and establish the same. [Para 31-33] Allahabad Bank v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405

Labour Law - Appeal against Madras HC judgment directing payment of backwages to an employee - Dismissed - Employee/writ petitioner cannot be denied the back wages for no fault of his and the principle of "no work no pay" shall not be applicable. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Labour Law - Employee is not supposed to prove the negative that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of employment- Once he asserts that he is not gainfully employed, thereafter the onus will shift to the employer positively and it would be for the employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed. (Para 6) Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 109 - Article 109 is the special Article to apply where the alienation of the father is challenged by the son and the property is ancestral and the parties are governed by Mitakshara law - The word 'alienation' in this article includes 'gift' - In order to attract Article 109, the following conditions have to be fulfilled: 1) The parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at the instance of the son; (3) the property relates to ancestral property; and (4) the alienee has taken over possession of the property alienated by the father. (Para 8 - 9) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Media Trial - All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel. If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law. The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law. Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice. (Para 21) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Medical Negligence - A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another - He/she would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field - Merely because he/she could not save the patient, that could not be considered to be a case of medical negligence. (Para 21-27) Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Medical Negligence - Appeal against NCDRC which dismissed appellant's complaint of medical negligence - Dismissed - Commission has not committed any manifest error in arriving to a conclusion that in post operative medical negligence or follow up care, there was no negligence being committed by the respondents which may be a foundation for entertaining the complaint filed by the appellants. Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006; Section 19 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. (Para 4) Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383

Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 324 - Arms Act, 1950 ; Section 27 - Once the charge against the appellants under Section 324 IPC of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm, which is a dangerous weapon stands established, they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by Section 27 of the Arms Act. (Para 22) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Penal Code, 1860; Section 324 - The presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows: 1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and 2. Such hurt was caused. (Para 21) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Penal Code, 1860; Section 394 - Appeal by accused convicted under Section 394 IPC - Allowed - Prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden to such an extent that the presumption of innocence weighing in favour of the accused stands displaced. Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Practice and Procedure - Appeal against Allahabad HC judgment which set aside conviction in a murder case - Allowed and remanded - Despite the strong observations made by this Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued. Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Practice and Procedure - Practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged. Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - If the financial establishment is obligated to return the deposit without any increments, it shall still fall within the purview of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act, provided that the deposit does not fall within any of the exception. (Para 37) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra) - Constitutional Validity upheld - MPID Act is constitutionally valid on the grounds of legislative competence and when tested against the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. [Referred to KK Bhaskaran v. State (2011) 3 SCC 793, State of Maharashtra v. Vijay C. Puljal (2012) 10 SCC 599 and Sonal Hemant Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 10 SCC 601] (Para 54, 57) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - National Spot Exchange Ltd - Settlement Guarantee Fund- Though the SGF is termed as a "security deposit' in nomenclature, its features do not represent a security deposit. Since NSEL receives 'money' in the form of that is returned in money and services, and is not covered by the exceptions, it would fall within the expression 'deposit' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act - NSEL is a 'financial establishment' for the purposes of the Act if it is a 'person accepting deposit'. (Para 41, 31) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - Deposit - Ingredients (i) Any receipt of money or the acceptance of a valuable commodity by a financial establishment; (ii) Such acceptance ought to be subject to the money or commodity being required to be returned after a specified period or otherwise; and (iii) The return of the money or commodity may be in cash, kind or in the form of a specified service, with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form. (Para 31) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - Valuable Commodity - Unlike many other state enactments which govern the field, clause (c) of Section 2 of the MPID Act comprehends within the meaning of a deposit not only the receipt of money but of any valuable commodity as well - The phrase 'valuable commodity' cannot be restricted to only mean precious metals. Agricultural commodities which NSEL trades in will fall within the purview of the term. (Para 35, 43) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra) - Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order of freeing the attachment of assets of 63 Moons Technologies. State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Sale of Goods Act, 1930; Section 2(7) - Vehicles are goods within the meaning of Section 2(7) of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and they carry implied conditions as to their fitness. (Para 7) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - Contention that only Special Court could take cognizance of offences under the Atrocities Act rejected. Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - SLP against Allahabad HC judgment which refused to quash order summoning the accused- Dismissed - The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 - Onus is on SEBI to prove communication of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information. (Para 32) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015; Regulation 3 - Regulation 3 does not create a deeming fiction in law. Hence, it is only through producing cogent materials (letters, emails, witnesses etc.) that the said communication of UPSI could be proved and not by deeming the communication to have happened owing to the alleged proximity between the parties. (Para 40) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15T - It is the duty of the first court of appeal to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties on both, the questions of law as well as questions of fact and then decide the issue by providing adequate reasons for its findings. (Para 24) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Service Law - An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. (Para 12) Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Service Law - Appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio. (Para 32) State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Service Law - Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) - A member of the disciplined force is expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in a fancy. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392 (Para 9)

Service Law - Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) - Appeal against Gauhati High court judgment upholding the order of disciplinary authority removing the appellant from service - Dismissed If the conduct on the part of the appellant entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion in the midnight is approved, in that case, it would lead to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack. Therefore, the disciplinary authority was absolutely justified in imposing the punishment/penalty of 'removal from service' by modifying the earlier punishment of dismissal. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 22(2) - Section 22(2) of the Act is only directory - Relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed - The expression "at any stage of proceeding" is wide enough to allow the plaintiffs to seek relief of possession even at the appellate stage or in execution even if such prayer was required to be claimed. (Para 25 - 30) Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - The hospitals where the procedure of transplantation is undertaken are to be registered in terms of Section 14 of the Act 1994, but for postoperative care, particularly after the patient being discharged from the hospital where the procedure of transplantation has taken place, we have not come across any provision under the Act, 1994 where such hospitals are required to be registered under the Act 1994. (Para 35) Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDCs) - The use of VWDCs should, in addition to criminal cases, be allowed for other jurisdictions, including, civil jurisdictions, family courts, juvenile justice boards and Childrens' courts. Permission should be granted for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses in cases across all jurisdictions. (Para 3) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Will - Appeal against Madras HC judgment which allowed second appeal and dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff who sought a declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of certain properties based upon the last Will and Testament by one Munisamy Chettiar, whom she claimed to be her husband - Allowed - The trial Court and the first appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the Will was true and valid and that there were no suspicious circumstances - High Court re­appreciated the very same evidence to come to a different conclusion in a second appeal - Truth and validity of the Will did not depend upon whether the plaintiff was a legally wedded wife or mistress of the testator or whether she was in an unacceptable relationship with the plaintiff. Saroja Ammal v. M. Deenadayalan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379

Will - The absolute owner of a property is entitled even to bequeath his properties in favour of strangers. (Para 20) Saroja Ammal v. M. Deenadayalan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379

2022 LiveLaw (SC) April Weekly Nominal Index Part 3 (376 to 406)

1. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 385
2. Allahabad Bank v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405
3. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392
4. Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402
5. Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397
6. Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391
7. Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson and Company Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389
8. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399
9. Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386
10. Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403
11. Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376
12. K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381
13. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Bhanuj Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394
14. Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395
15. Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406
16. Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390
17. Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384
18. Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401
19. Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396
20. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377
21. Saroja Ammal v. M. Deenadayalan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379
22. Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380
23. State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400
24. State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393
25. State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378
26. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388
27. Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382
28. Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383
29. Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404
30. Union of India v. Willowood Chemicals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398
31. Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387