SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Administrative Law

Rules of Business - When the Cabinet constitutes a committee and the latter’s actions are validated by the Minister and the rest of the Council, then it cannot be claimed that Rules of Business have not been followed by the State Government in the course of its decision-making process. (Para 90) Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Arfat Petrochemicals, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Advocate

Advocates Strikes - The Supreme Court requested all high courts to constitute grievance redressal committees comprising the chief justice and two other senior judges, one from the Bar and another from services to avert lawyers' strikes. District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 331

Duty of all genuine lawyers to get their degrees verified: Supreme Court forms expert committee to oversee verification. Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Amendment

Retrospective application for Amendment - Amendment by substitution has the effect of wiping the earlier provision from the statute book and replacing it with the amended provision as if the unamended provision never existed - 2015 amendment substituted "belong/belongs" in Section 153C with "pertain/pertains" and hence is amendment by substitution. (Para 10.4) Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Arbitration

Arbitration agreement in unstamped contract which is exigible to stamp duty not enforceable: Supreme Court holds by 3:2 majority. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Supreme Court deprecates practice of filing applications in disposed of SLPs to side-step arbitration process. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Section 34 application must be filed within 90 days limitation to claim exclusion of period when court remain closed. Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v Walchandnagar Industries Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Limited scrutiny of court under Section 11 of Arbitration Act through the “eye of the needle”, is necessary and compelling. NTPC Ltd v. SPML Infra Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Armed Forces

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

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

Bail

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

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

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

Civil Law

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Inconsistencies in plaint averments not a sufficient reason to reject plaint. G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311

For Res Judicata To Apply, Previous Suit Should Have Been Decided On Merits : Supreme Court Explains Principles. Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

[Order 17 Rule 3 CPC] Suit can be decided on merit if there is some material, though it may not be strictly "evidence". Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Coal

New Coal Distribution Policy (NCDP) - ‘Change in Law’ Relief - Policy of Inter-Plant Transfer (IPT) of coal by Coal India Ltd. (CIL) a “change in law” event - Finding of APTEL that the communication dated 19th June 2013 permitting IPT is not a ‘Change in Law’ would not be sustainable. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Constitution

Precedents - While it is open to a learned Judge to differ with a view of a Co-ordinate Bench the sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers being placed before the learned Chief Justice. The learned Judge cannot simply say "with due respect, I do not agree to the ratio..." or “the decision is per incuriam as a binding judgment of the Supreme Court has not been considered….” and proceed to take a contrary view - Such an approach would result in conflicting opinions of Coordinate Benches, resulting in judicial chaos and is, thus, improper. This is something atrocious and unacceptable. (Para 81) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Domicile Reservation - Domicile reservation can't be wholesale reservation - Supreme Court asks MP Govt to review its 75% domicile quota in B.Ed seats - though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 364

Governors should return bills as soon as possible: Supreme Court observes in Telangana Government's plea against governor. State of Telangana v. Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 356

'No equality in matter of illegality': Supreme Court denies relief to school teacher dismissed for degree through distance education. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Commercial enterprises can raise consumer disputes in relation to goods or services unconnected to profit generation. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Criminal Law

Investigating officer did not meet the obligations’: Supreme Court reverses murder conviction imposed by Trial Court, affirmed by High Court. Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Not necessary to review / recall / quash order accepting closure report before carrying out further investigation. State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Criminal Investigation - Criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the Society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a Court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. Mere delay in approaching a Court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case. Though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict. (Para 84) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man who murdered his sister & her lover from another caste; takes note of 'social pressure'. Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Supreme Court sets aside Telangana HC Order directing CBI to provide printed questions to YSRCP MP Avinash Reddy; says such orders gravely prejudice investigation. Suneetha Narreddy v. Y.S. Avinash Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 355

If the prosecution proposes death sentence, it must produce before the Trial Court information about the background of the accused. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Supreme Court shocked to see police filing closure report in case where FIR was quashed; directs to discontinue such practice. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Appellate Court should separately hear convict on quantum of sentence when acquittal is reversed. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Asaram Bapu Case : Supreme Court sets aside Rajasthan HC order to summon IPS officer Ajay Lamba as witness. State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Trial Courts, Public Prosecutors should be vigilant while framing of charges against accused. Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314

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

The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings at Section 482 Cr.P.C. stage by saying charges aren't proved. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Alleged lack of jurisdiction of court no ground to transfer case: Supreme Court dismisses PFI student wing leader's plea. Ka Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284

View that there cannot be police custody beyond 15 days from date of arrest should be reconsidered. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Power to transfer cases to be used sparingly; may cast unnecessary aspersions on state judiciary & prosecution agency. Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Death Penalty

Mitigating Circumstances - Wherever the prosecution is of the opinion that the crime an accused is convicted for, is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out the exercise of placing the materials, in terms of Manoj vs State of MP, for evaluation. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

The Supreme Court directs all the States/appropriate authorities to decide mercy petitions against death sentences at the earliest so that the benefit of delay is not accrued to the accused. State of Maharashtra v. Renuka Shinde, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Even if the death penalty is to be commuted in view of inordinate delay in deciding mercy petition, an order to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment for natural life without any remission ought to be passed. State of Maharashtra v. Renuka Shinde, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Digitization of Records

The Supreme Court issued directions to all the High Courts for ensuring digitalisation of lower court records. (Para 39 - 42) Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Disability

Disability Rights & CLAT - Supreme Court passes further guidelines to ensure access to CLAT for candidates with disabilities. Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 349

Dowry Death

Unnatural death of wife in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage in itself not sufficient to convict husband for dowry death. Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Education

UP Intermediate Education Act | Appointment process of teachers not concluded without approval by District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

U.P. Intermediate Education Act | No 'deemed appointment' of selected candidate if dios doesn't give approval within 15 days. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

UP Intermediate Education Act | Vacancies which existed before amendment of regulation 17 are to be governed by amended rules. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

E-Filing

It would defeat the purpose if in addition to e-filing, the ITATs insist on filing of the appeals in the physical mode. This has to be discontinued since it imposes an unnecessary burden on litigants. If there is a training deficit in respect of the Members of the ITAT, this shall be attended to immediately so that all Members of the ITAT are equipped to handle e-filed cases. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Practice and Procedure - E-Filing - Supreme Court affirms mandatory e-filing in DRTs and DRATs - Issues directions to enable access to people who are technologically deprived - Directions issued to set up e-sewa kendras. M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276

E-Filing and Virtual Courts - There can be no gainsaying the fact that e-filing provides transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice. E-filing provides for 24x7 access to the court system and, in fact, facilitates the convenience of lawyers as well as litigants. With the march of technology, it would be too late in the day to postulate that e-filing should not be adopted. As a matter of fact, the decision to take up e-filing must be replicated by other tribunals and courts in the country, including the High Courts in a phased manner and that it eventually becomes mandatory. (Para 12) M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276

E-Filing - Supreme Court refuses to allow an exception to women lawyers - not inclined to accept the submission that there should be a general exception to female practitioners and litigants. There is no reason to postulate that there is a gender divide in one’s inherent ability to use technology. (Para 20) M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276

Election

Supreme Court quashes forgery case against former Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal & Akali Dal leaders over party's dual constitution. Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Electricity

Contract Process - The Supreme Court has reiterated the requirement of a specific show-cause notice before imposing penalty. Noting that the show-cause notice issued by the Madhya Pradesh Power Distribution Company (M.P. DISCOM) was only about debarment, the court remarked that the action of imposing penalty without even putting the tenderee/ appellant to notice with respect to the same, cannot be approved. Isolators and Isolators v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330

DISCOMS to pay ‘change in law’ compensation for all additional charges levied by state instrumentalities to power generating companies. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Appellate Electricity Tribunal cannot casually render findings of coercion without proper pleading, proof or probe. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Environment

Metro Rail - Supreme Court refused to interfere with the construction work on phase-IV of Delhi Metro, stating that any interference at this stage would also result in a huge escalation of its cost, causing a loss to the public exchequer. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363

No doubt that the concern for the environment is an important aspect. However, at the same time, developmental works like the metro rail, which will cater to millions of people and also reduce carbon emissions, inasmuch as the number of vehicles on the road would be reduced, cannot be ignored. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns at the unregulated number of devotees visiting places of worship which are situated in national parks and sanctuaries. In re: T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - the requirement of declaring ESZs is not to hamper day to day activities of the citizens but is meant to protect the precious forests/Protected Areas from any negative impact, and to refine the environment around the Protected Areas. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

The Supreme Court modified its order dated June 3, 2022 to the extent that directions in the said order mandating a 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around protected forests would not be applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a draft and final notification has been issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) and in respect of the proposals which have been received by the Ministry. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - If the direction as issued by this Court in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 is continued, then no permanent structure would be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose in the aforesaid ESZs. Hundreds of villages are situated within the ESZs in the country. If no permanent construction is to be permitted for any purpose, a villager who is desirous to reconstruct his house would not be permitted. Similarly, if the Government decides to construct schools, dispensaries, anganwadis, village stores, water tanks and other basic structures for improvement of the life of the villagers, the same would also not be permitted. The effect of the order will be to prevent the State or the Central Government from constructing roads and provide other facilities to the villagers. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - If the direction as contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated June 3, 2022 that even for continuation of existing activities, the permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) of each State or Union Territory would be necessary, remains unmodified, taking into consideration that in each State or Union Territory there will be hundreds of villages wherein millions of people would be residing, the PCCF would be left with no other job except to consider such applications for permission to continue such activities. Even a farmer desirous to continue farming activities would be required to seek such permission. We find that such a direction is impossible to be implemented. If such a direction is continued, rather than avoiding man-animal conflict, it will intensify the same. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - The Court modified the directions contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated June 3, 2022 as follows: 1. The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities. 2. We further direct that while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities in ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not be permissible. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Aarey Case - The Supreme Court imposes Rs. 10 lakh fine on Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) for seeking to cut more trees than allowed; but allows it to cut 177 trees. In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Evidence Law

Section 27 Evidence Act statement not liable to be rejected merely because it was recorded in a language not known to the accused through translator. Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on the point of law. (Para 39) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Cross-examination - During the course of cross-examination with a view to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to those incriminate the accused in any manner then the same would definitely be binding and could be taken into consideration along with other evidence on record in support of the same. (Para 44) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Cross-examination - The main object of cross-examination is to find out the truth on record and to help the Court in knowing the truth of the case. It is a matter of common experience that many a times the defence lawyers themselves get the discrepancies clarified arising during the cross-examination in one paragraph and getting themselves contradicted in the other paragraph. The line of cross-examination is always on the basis of the defence which the counsel would keep in mind to defend the accused. (Para 43) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Injured Witness - The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (Para 26) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Right of Private Defence - If a specific question is put to a witness by way of a suggestion indicative of exercise of right of private defence then the Court would well be justified in taking into consideration such suggestion and if the presence of the accused is established the same would definitely be admissible in evidence. (Para 45) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the accused. (Para 42) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

The suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-examination if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admissions against his client. (Para 38) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Family Law

Irretrievably broken down marriage can be dissolved on ground of 'cruelty'. Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Hysterectomy

Unnecessary Hysterectomies - From the counter affidavits filed by the States of Rajasthan, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, it emerges that there is a considerable degree of substance in the facts. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Unnecessary Hysterectomies - Union government shall take all necessary steps in accordance with the Guidelines to effectuate the public interest which is sought to be achieved. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Unnecessary Hysterectomies - All the States and Union Territories must take stringent action for blacklisting hospitals once it is detected that any unnecessary hysterectomy was carried out or that the procedure was taken recourse to without the informed consent of the patient. We direct that necessary action be taken in accordance with law. (Para 19) Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Insurance Law

Negligence by Doctor - In a case of negligence committed by Doctor, the Insurance Company which covered the Doctor would have to reimburse the compensation to the Complainant to the extent of its liability under the Policy, as against the Doctor concerned.Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Prem Prakash Rajagaria, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Interpretation of Statutes

Once the primary intention is ascertained and the object and purpose of the legislation is known, it then becomes the duty of the Court to give the statute a purposeful or a functional interpretation - Primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, the Court must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the object and purpose of the enactment - Ascertainment of the legislative intent is a basic rule of statutory construction and that a rule of construction should be preferred which advances the purpose and object of a legislation and that though the construction, according to the plain language, should ordinarily be adopted, such a construction should not be adopted where it leads to anomalies, injustices or absurdities. (Para 10.7) Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Investigation

There is absolutely no warrant for the High Court to direct that the investigation of a person who has been interrogated as a suspect in the conspiracy should be in the printed or written form. Similarly, it is wholly inappropriate for the High Court to observe that the questionnaire may also be handed over to the respondent. Such orders of the High Court are liable to gravely prejudice the course of investigation. Suneetha Narreddy v. Y.S. Avinash Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Judicial Service

Supreme Court upholds the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on a civil judge in Karnataka - A judicial officer cannot pronounce the concluding portion of his judgment in open court without the entire text of the judgment being prepared / dictated - Supreme Court takes exception to the High Court division bench not only setting aside the penalty but also ordering that there shall be no further enquiry against the officer. Registrar General High Court of Karnataka v. Sri M.Narasimha Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Judicial officers' pay hike - Supreme Court dismisses review petitions of Centre & States against direction to implement commission recommendations. Union of India v. All India Judges Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 273

Supreme Court dismisses petitions filed by Union of India and some states to review the order for implementation of the enhanced pay scale for judicial officers as per the recommendation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) - Argument that uniform Index of Rationalisation (IoR) would equate the district courts with constitutional courts is erroneous; all Judges across the hierarchy of courts discharge the same essential function - The standards of ethics and professionalism expected of judges are more rigorous than those applied to other services / professions. Ensuring adequate emoluments, pension and proper working conditions for the members of the district judiciary has an important bearing on the efficiency of judicial administration and the effective discharge of the unique role assigned to the judiciary. (Para 14, 15) Union of India v. All India Judges Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 273

Judgment

Uniform format for judgments - Supreme Court says that it is desirable that all Courts and Tribunals number the paragraphs in the judgments - Suggest adoption of a uniform format for Judgments and Orders, including paragraphing. (Para 56, 57) B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Land Acquisition

The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination. Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312

The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated as a trespasser. When a large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start residing or physically occupying the same once process of the acquisition is complete - If after the process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with possession, any person retaining the land or any re-entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land. Land and Building Department through Secretary v. Attro Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Supreme Court upholds quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Orissa Government to acquire nearly 8000 acres of land for Vedanta University proposed to be established by Anil Agarwal Foundation - Violations of the provisions of the LA Act 1894 - Also notes that procedure was vitiated by favouritism - Not appreciable why the Government offered such an undue favour in favour of one trust / company - No application of mind regarding environmental aspects - Two rivers also sought to be acquired. Anil Agarwal Foundation v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Medical Education

Foreign Medical Graduates - Supreme Court allows repatriated medical students from Ukraine, China etc., who are in their penultimate year to clear the MBBS exam in two attempt as an extraordinary measure. Archita v. National Medical Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Menstrual Hygiene

Menstrual Hygiene, Distribution of free sanitary pads to school children, establishment of disposal units - It would be appropriate if the Union Government engages with all the State governments and Union Territories to ensure that a uniform national policy is formulated with sufficient leeway for the States and Union Territories to make adjustments, based on the prevailing conditions in their territories - Bearing in mind the importance of the issue which has been raised, we direct that all States and Union Territories must submit their menstrual hygiene management strategies and plans which are being executed either with the help of funds provided by the Central Government or through their own funds to the Mission Steering Group of the National Health Mission within a period of four weeks - the States and Union Territories shall also indicate to the Mission Steering Group of the National Health Mission the appropriate ratio of female toilets for residential and nonresidential schools for their respective territories - All States and Union Territories shall also indicate the steps which have been taken to provide for the availability of low cost sanitary pads and vending machines in schools and for appropriate disposal mechanisms. Besides making a provision for ensuring the availability of low cost sanitary pads and vending machines in all schools, they shall also ensure that disposal mechanisms are available in schools/school complexes with enrollment of female students in upper primary, secondary and higher secondary classes for safe disposal of sanitary pads. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 309

Mental illness

Supreme Court orders release of daughter suffering from mental illness after 12 year sentence for homicide of father. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Migrant Labourers

The Supreme Court directed state governments to grant ration cards to migrant or unorganized workers who do not have them but are registered on the centre's e-Shram portal, within three months. In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 332

Motor Vehicle

HC Order reducing sentence in motor accident case quashed, SC says, ‘undue sympathy is unsustainable when aim of IPC is to punish offenders’. State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Narcotic Drugs

Ganja seeds not banned contraband under NDPS Act. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 354

National Security

'Shocking': Supreme Court on UP Govt invoking National Security Act in Revenue Recovery Case; Quashes detention of SP Leader. Yusuf Malik v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 301

National Security and Natural Justice - Mere involvement of issues concerning national security would not preclude the state’s duty to act fairly. If the State discards its duty to act fairly, then it must be justified before the court on the facts of the case. Firstly, the State must satisfy the Court that national security concerns are involved. Secondly, the State must satisfy the court that an abrogation of the principle(s) of natural justice is justified - concerns of national 2 security do not permit an absolute abrogation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 75 and 76) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

IB Reports not wholly immune from disclosure - The reports of the intelligence agencies are not merely fact-finding reports. Reports of investigative agencies make observations and provide inferences on the conduct of individuals which are then relied upon by the decision making authority. To argue that reports of the intelligence agencies may contain confidential information is one thing but to argue that the all such reports are confidential is another. Such an argument is misplaced and cannot be accepted on the touchstone of constitutional values. The reports by investigative agencies impact decisions on the life, liberty, and profession of individuals and entities, and to give such reports absolute immunity from disclosure is antithetical to a transparent and accountable system - A blanket immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be granted. (Para 81) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

National Security and Judicial Review - the Courts do not resort to a hands-off approach when it is claimed that national security implications are involved. (Para 83) The Court must assess the validity of the claim of purpose by determining (i) whether there is material to conclude that the nondisclosure of the information is in the interest of national security; and (ii) whether a reasonable prudent person would arrive at the same conclusion based on the materials. National Security - The State is using national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under the law. This is not compatible with the rule of law. (Para 97) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Partition

For interpreting Section 121 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, analogy can be drawn from Order XX Rule 18 Of CPC. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Precedent

The dismissal of the special leave petition in limine does not amount to affirmation of the view taken by the High Court. Unless the judgment of the High Court is affirmed, at least, with short reasoning, the same would not amount to binding precedent. (Para 6) Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312

Preventive Detention

Preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and as such, are extremely powerful laws that have the ability to confer arbitrary power to the state. In such a circumstance, where there is a possibility of an unfettered discretion of power by the Government, this Court must analyze cases arising from such laws with extreme caution and excruciating detail, to ensure that there are checks and balances on the power of the Government. (Para 44) Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Every procedural rigidity, must be followed in entirety by the Government in cases of preventive detention, and every lapse in procedure must give rise to a benefit to the case of the detenue. The Courts, in circumstances of preventive detention, are conferred with the duty that has been given the utmost importance by the Constitution, which is the protection of individual and civil liberties. (Para 44) Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Property

Value of plant & machinery permanently embedded to land must be ascertained to compute stamp duty for sale deed. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Railway

Supreme Court dismisses plea to restore concession in railway tickets for senior citizens.M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Registration

S.17 Registration Act - High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to alter or amend registered lease deed. Gwalior Development Authority v. Bhanu Pratap Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Unregistered agreement to sell is admissible as evidence in suit for specific performance. R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Rent

Delhi Rent Control | Improper description of property in application no ground to set aside possession order under Section 25-B(8). Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 368

UP Urban Building Act | Tenant can deposit rent in court only on the landlord's refusal to accept. Man Singh v. Shamim Ahmad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 290

Right of Pre-emption

The pre-emptor must establish that he had the right to pre-empt on the date of sale, on the date of the filing of the suit and on the date of the passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance. If the claimant-plaintiff loses that right or the vendee improves his right equal or above the right of the claimant before the adjudication of the suit, the suit for pre-emption would fail. (Para 17) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Route March

Supreme Court dismisses Tamil Nadu Government's appeals against Madras High Court judgment allowing RSS route marches in the state. Phanindra Reddy, IAS v. G. Subramanian, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 295

SARFAESI Act

Supreme Court deprecates High Courts entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters; frowns upon borrowers approaching HCs to consider offers to banks. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Bank can't forfeit deposit made after auction purchase when the bidder wasn't informed of challenge pending against sale. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Sealed Cover Procedure

Supreme Court quashes the decision of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to not renew the telecast license for Malayalam news channel MediaOne - Disapproves the "sealed cover procedure" adopted by the High Court in upholding the Govt decision on the basis of confidential documents furnished by MHA in sealed cover. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

It is now an established principle of natural justice that relevant material must be disclosed to the affected party. This rule ensures that the affected party is able to effectively exercise their right to appeal. When relevant material is disclosed in a sealed cover, there are two injuries that are perpetuated. First, the documents are not available to the affected party. Second, the documents are relied upon by the opposite party (which is most often the state) in the course of the arguments, and the court arrives at a finding by relying on the material. In such a case, the affected party does not have any recourse to legal remedies because it would be unable to (dis)prove any inferences from the material before the adjudicating authority. (Para 58) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

This form of adjudication perpetuates a culture of secrecy and opaqueness, and places the judgment beyond the reach of challenge - The right to seek judicial review which has now been read into Articles 14 and 21 is restricted. A corresponding effect of the sealed cover procedure is a non-reasoned order. (Para 59) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Sealed cover procedures violate both principles of natural justice and open justice. (Para 146) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Public Immunity Claim procedure devised as a less restrictive alternative to sealed cover procedure. (Para 171 to 173) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Service Law

The Supreme Court rejects the claim of employees to count the entire period of work-charged service for pension. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine cannot be said to be performing “equal work” so as to be entitled to “equal pay”. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 350

Government servants cannot claim the benefits of Double Overtime Allowance Benefits under the Factories Act, dehors the service rules - Unlike those employed in factories and industrial establishments, persons in public service who are holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State are required to place themselves at the disposal of the Government all the time - Persons holding civil posts or in the civil services of the State enjoy certain privileges and hence, the claim made by the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court, in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Service Law - there are three different categories of employment, if not more, in the country. They are, (i) employment which is statutorily protected under labour welfare legislations, so as to prevent exploitation and unfair labour practices; (ii) employment which falls outside the purview of the labour welfare legislations and hence, governed solely by the terms of the contract; and (iii) employment of persons to civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State. Any Court or Tribunal adjudicating a dispute relating to conditions of service of an employee, should keep in mind the different parameters applicable to these three different categories of employment. (Para 23) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Government employees cannot be denied the annual increment merely because they are to retire on the very next day of earning the increment - The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day - Increment is not an "incentive" to perform well the next year - The entitlement to the benefit of annual increment is due to the service already rendered. (Para 6.7) Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296

In absence of sanctioned post, the State cannot be compelled to create the post and absorb the persons who are continuing in service of the State - Direction of the High Court to reinstate after creating the posts and absorb the respondents based on their qualification is not sustainable in law. (Para 54 to 57) Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294

For out of turn promotion, parity can't be claimed. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act - Action to cancel an instrument under Section 31 is not action in rem. Asian Avenues Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Syed Shoukat Hussain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 369

Party can't claim time is essence of contract when specific performance of terms not done. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Tax

Transfer Pricing - High Courts not precluded from scrutinising ITAT’s determination of Arm’s Length Price. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Penalty leviable under S. 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is statutory and mandatory; commissioner/ao has no discretion. State of Gujarat v. Saw Pipes Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Mortein spray, harpic & lizol cleaner- not classifiable as ‘insecticide’ under KVAT; Dettol a 'Medicament'. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 306

Service Tax - Same activity can be taxed as ‘goods’ and ‘services’ provided the contract is indivisible and on the aspect of services there may be levy of service tax. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v. Suzlon Energy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 298

Service Tax - the import of “Engineering Design & Drawings” falls under the category of “design services” under section 65(35b) read with Section 65(105) (zzzzd) of the Finance Act, 1994, and are subject to levy of service tax. On the sole ground that “Engineering Design & Drawings” prepared and supplied by sister company were shown as ‘goods’ under the Customs Act and in the bill of entry, such services cannot be excluded from the definition of “design services” under the Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v. Suzlon Energy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 298

Income Tax Act | For a company to be a "resident" in India, domicile or registration irrelevant; test is where de facto control lies. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Mere delay in remittance of TDS doesn’t attract penalty under S. 271C Income Tax Act. US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 285

Section 263 Income Tax Act - Erroneous order of assessing officer causing prejudice to revenue is revisable by CIT. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paville Projects Pvt Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Service Tax - Issuance of a corporate guarantee on behalf of group companies without consideration is not a taxable service. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 281

2015 amendment to Section 153C of Income Tax Act will apply to searches conducted prior to the date of amendment. Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Unlawful Activities

No reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true: Supreme Court grants bail to two alleged maoists after 4.5 years' custody. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317

Unlawful Assembly

Section 149 IPC will be attracted if five or more persons specifically named in fir are facing trial separately. Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Waqf

Beneficiary of waqf, not being trustee or co-owner, can claim title of waqf property by adverse possession. Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323

ACT WISE INDEX

Advocates Act, 1961 - Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015 - Having regard to the larger dimensions of this matter and the direct impact which the enrollment of fake degree holders and other persons who are not found to be in possession of the qualifications required for entry into the Bar have on the administration of justice, we accede to the suggestion of the Bar Council of India that a High Powered Committee should be constituted by this Court to monitor the process of verification. In our view, such a High-Powered Committee should be chaired by a former Judge of this Court and its members should consist of: (i) two Judges of the High Court; (ii) two senior advocates; and (iii) three members of the Bar Council of India. (Para 13) Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Supreme Court has reiterated that the courts ought not to normally interfere with the arbitral proceedings, especially till the time an arbitral award is not passed - The top court has deprecated the practice of filing applications in disposed of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in order to side-step the arbitration process, adding that the said applications must not be entertained by the court. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Certified copy can be produced at the Section 11 stage only if it clearly indicates the stamp duty paid. If the same is not mentioned, the Court should not act on the said certified copy. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - The Apex Court has set aside the decision of the Delhi High Court where the Court had referred the parties to arbitration under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, after the parties had entered into a Settlement Agreement which recorded that there were no subsisting issues pending between them. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have exercised the prima facie test to screen and strike down the ex-facie meritless and dishonest litigation. Further, it ought to have examined the issue of the final settlement of disputes in context of the principles laid down in Vidya Drolia and Ors. vs. Durga Trading Corporation ((2021) 2 SCC 1 - The Supreme Court has ruled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, the court is not expected to act mechanically, and that the limited scrutiny of the court at the pre-reference stage, through the “eye of the needle”, is necessary and compelling. NTPC Ltd v. SPML Infra Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - the Court at the Section 11 stage is bound to examine the instrument and if found to be unstamped or insufficiently stamped the instrument is to be impounded at this stage itself. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - An application under Section 34 must be filed within “prescribed period” of limitation i.e. 90 days, for seeking benefit of exclusion of period during which the Court remained closed from computation of limitation period. If the application is filed by invoking proviso to Section 34(3) of Arbitration Act, which extends the limitation period to further 30 days on the Court’s discretion, then benefit of such exclusion would not be available to the applicant. Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v Walchandnagar Industries Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7 - An arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act attracts stamp duty and which is not stamped or insufficiently stamped cannot be acted upon in view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act unless following impounding and paying requisite duty. The provisions of Section 33 and the bar under Section 35 of the Stamp Act would render the arbitration agreement contained in such instrument as being non-existent in law until the instrument is validated under the Stamp Act. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7 - Whether the arbitration clause in a contract, which is required to be registered and stamped, but is not registered and stamped, is valid and enforceable? Held, an instrument which is exigible to stamp duty may contain an arbitration clause and which is not stamped cannot be said to be a contract enforceable in law within the meaning of S. 2(h) of the Contract Act and is not enforceable under S 2(g) of the Contract Act. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343

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

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

Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - Guiding principles summarized. (Para 33) Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 17 Rule 3 - The power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC to decide the suit on the merits for the default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts the remedy of the unsuccessful party for redress. It has to be used only sparingly in exceptional cases. Physical presence without preparedness to co-operate for anything connected with the progress of the case serves no useful purpose in deciding the suit on the merits and it is worse than absence. There must be some materials for a decision on the merits, even though the materials may not be technically interpreted as evidence. Sometimes the decision in such cases. (Para 52) Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into. When the ground pleaded for rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint - Merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. The question was whether the plaint discloses the cause of action. (Para 6-9) G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; Section 121 - Instrument of Partition - For the purpose of interpreting Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act, the Court can safely draw an analogy from the provisions contained in Order XX, Rule 18 C.P.C. which pertain to the procedure to be followed on the passing of the decree for the partition of the property. (Para 28) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; Section 121 - When a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the “decree”. (Para 30) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res judicata - An order closing the proceedings is not final decision of the suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 17 Rule 3 resply of the CPC - will not operate as res judiciata. (Para 55) Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judiciata - The general principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC contain rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff’s appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit. (Para 34) Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 406 - This Court has allowed transfers only in exceptional cases considering the fact that transfers may cast unnecessary aspersions on the State Judiciary and the prosecution agency. Thus, over the years, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and situations wherein such power can be justiciably invoked. Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Chapter XII - The Investigating Officer is the person tasked with determining a direction, the pace, manner and method of the investigation. (Para 38 - 43) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Chapter XII - Whether the Investigating Officer had complied with the duties and responsibilities cast upon him - Held, the Investigating Officer did not examine the owner of the house; (b) did not enter his movement in the case diary; (c) did not record that he took the accused for effecting the recovery; (d) was not able to describe clearly the area from where the recovery was effected; (e) admits both the independent witnesses, who do not belong to the area from where the recoveries were effected; (f) does not associate any of the residents of the area for conducting the search; (g) does not examine any of the residents for carrying out any further investigation and (h) Most importantly he admits that both the memo of arrest as also the recovery not to have been prepared by him or bearing his signature and the same too, have many corrections and over­writing, thus reducing the correctness and authenticity of this document. Furthermore, he is not clear about the description of the articles recovered. The Investigating Officer did not meet the obligations he was under. Numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation conducted by him or upon his directions. (Para 35) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court’s process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It cannot be disputed that the right of custodial interrogation/ investigation is also a very important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Therefore, by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process. (Para 8) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal - General principles discussed. (Para 14) Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Supreme Court directs Police to not file closure report in cases where proceedings/FIR have been quashed by the High Court - In case of quashing of the criminal proceedings/FIRs by the High Court, there is no question of preparing/filing a closure report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - Filing incomplete chargesheet without completing investigation would not extinguish the right of accused to get default bail. Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Accused cannot claim the benefit of default bail, when he did not challenge the first extension of time granted for investigation and the second extension was granted in his presence and when the chargesheet was subsequently filed within the period of extension. Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - It is true that in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 141, this Court observed that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest. In our opinion, the view taken by this Court in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra) requires re-consideration. (Para 7, 7.1) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8) - Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted - Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed - Though the order passed by the Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC - There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC - Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial and effective justice. (Para 50, 73, 76- 77) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8), 173(2)(i) - Alternatives before a Magistrate when a “Final Report” is filed - The Magistrate may either: (1) accept the report and take cognizance of offence and issue process, (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or may take cognizance on the basis of report/material submitted by the investigation officer, (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require police to make a report as per Section 173(8) of the CrPC. (4) may treat the protest complaint as a complaint, and proceed under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC. State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2) - Appellate court reverses acquittal of two accused in murder case - However imposes sentences on them without hearing them on sentence as per Section 235(2) - Supreme Court sets aside the sentence finding it to be ex-facie illegal as accused were not heard - In view of sub Section (2) of Section 235 of CrPC, the court is obliged to hear the accused persons after their conviction on the quantum of sentence before passing a sentence against them - The principle of according opportunity of hearing to the convict before sentencing him is equally applicable where the sentencing is done by the appellate court. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 - Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily - The language of Section 385 shows that the Court sitting in appeal governed thereby is required to call for the records of the case from the concerned Court below. The same is an obligation, power coupled with a duty, and only after the perusal of such records would an appeal be decided. (Para 36) Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 - Whether, in the absence of the records of the Court of Trial, the appellate Court could have upheld the conviction and enhanced the quantum of fine? Held, the Accused, in appeal, has a right to have the record perused by the Appellate Court and, therefore, upholding a conviction by merely having noted that the counsel for the accused not having the record at the time of filing the appeal is “doubtful” and that “no one can believe” the appeal would have been filed without perusing the record, as observed by the High Court is not correct. The job of the Court of Appeal is not to depend on the lower Court's judgment to uphold the conviction but, based on the record available before it duly called from the Trial Court and the arguments advanced before it, to come to a conclusion thereon. (Para 33) Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 391 - Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken - The power to take additional evidence in an appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and thus, must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance of the prayer. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - That most of the accused and witnesses are from A state is not a ground to transfer case from B state to A state. (Para 12) Ka Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - The lack of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint can be no ground to order its transfer. A congenital defect of lack of jurisdiction, assuming that it exists, inures to the benefit of the accused and hence it need not be cured at the instance of the accused to his detriment. (Para 11) Ka Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - Seeking pre-deposit of bank guarantee for grant of bail is unsustainable. Makhijani Pushpak Harish v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings at section 482 Cr.P.C. stage by saying charges aren't proved - High Court cannot conduct a "mini trial" while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not.” - Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial - What is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 211-224, 464 - Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous when it comes to the framing of charges. In a given case, any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a long delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be passed under sub-section (2) of Section 464 of CrPC. Apart from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge. (Para 16) Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 311 and 391 - Power of the court to take additional evidence - Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. consists of two parts; the first gives power to the court to summon any witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings, whether the person is listed as a witness, or is in attendance though not summoned as a witness. Secondly, the trial court has the power to recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. On the other hand, the discretion under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be read as somewhat more restricted in comparison to Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., as the appellate court is dealing with an appeal, after the trial court has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the person being prosecuted. The appellate court can examine the evidence in depth and in detail, yet it does not possess all the powers of the trial court as it deals with cases wherein the decision has already been pronounced. (Para 16) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Doctrine of Equality - there cannot be equality in the matter of illegality - can't claim benefit of illegal orders passed in the cases of other persons - denies relief to school teacher who secured bachelor's degree through distance education. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(2) - the non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The reasons for denying a security clearance to MBL, that is, its alleged antiestablishment stance and the alleged link of the shareholders to JEIH, are not legitimate purposes for the restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In any event, there was no material to demonstrate any link of the shareholders, as was alleged. Principles of Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice ensure that justice is not only done but it is seen to be done as well. A reasoned order is one of the fundamental requirements of fair administration. (Para 56) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(a) - Press Freedom - An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a democratic republic - Its role in a democratic society is crucial for it shines a light on the functioning of the state. The press has a duty to speak truth to power, and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction. The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenised view on issues that range from socioeconomic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy. The critical views of the Channel, Media-One on policies of the government cannot be termed, ‘anti-establishment’. The use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment. The action of the MIB by denying a security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views which the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a chilling effect on free speech, and in particular on press freedom. (Para 166 and 167) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20 (2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8) - Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over - Investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. (Para 77) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The right to health is an intrinsic element of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Life, to be enjoyed in all its diverse elements, must be based on robust conditions of health. There has been a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the women who underwent unnecessary hysterectomies. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Whether, given the language employed under Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present situation constitutes a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights? Held, Protection of the rights under Article 21 entails protection of liberty from any restriction thereupon in the absence of fair legal procedure. Fair legal procedure includes the opportunity for the person filing an appeal to question the conclusions drawn by the trial court. The same can only be done when the record is available with the Court of Appeal. That is the mandate of Section 385 of the CrPC. Therefore, it is not within prudence to lay down a straightjacket formula, held that non­compliance with the mandate of the section, in certain cases contingent upon specific facts and circumstances of the case, would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 35) Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (5) - illegible documents given to the detenue in preventive detention can cause prejudice in submitting a representation. This violates the principles under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, where the detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue. (Para 39) Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Supreme Court deprecates High Court entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters, especially against private banks - When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State, is one of a status. It is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued under Article 309 or its proviso. (Para 21) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Plea to restore concession in railway tickets for senior citizens – Cannot entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as the matter involves the policy decision of the Railways whether to restore the railway concession to senior citizens as was done before on the ground of being a welfare State - the matter involving a fiscal issue, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue writ of this nature, the petitioner seeks and it is for the Government to take a call on the policy decision keeping in mind the needs of the senior citizens and the fiscal repercussions - The writ petition is dismissed. M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14 and 16 - Whether different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre, on the basis of educational qualifications possessed by them? - the issue is no longer res integra - classification based on educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 350

Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - Governors must return bills as soon as possible - The first proviso to Article 200 states that the Governor may “as soon as possible after the presentation” of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the State Legislature. The expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities. State of Telangana v. Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Tests to determine if goods or services were purchased or availed for commercial purposes - Two fold tests- (i) whether the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose; or (ii) whether the services are availed for any commercial purpose - If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose, then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of the Act, 1986. For example, if a manufacturer who is producing product A, for such production he may be required to purchase articles which may be raw material, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose. As against this, if the same manufacturer purchases a refrigerator, television or air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even for his office has no direct or indirect nexus to generate profits, cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for afore-stated reason he is qualified to approach the Consumer Forum under the Act, 1986 - Similarly, a hospital which hires services of a medical practitioner, it would be a commercial purpose, but if a person avails such services for his ailment, it would be held to be a noncommercial purpose. (Para 39) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Act, 1986 is a social benefit-oriented legislation and, therefore, the Court has to adopt a constructive liberal approach while construing the provisions of the Act - The provisions of the Act, 1986 thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit-oriented legislation. (Para 21, 24) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - there is no such exclusion from the definition of the term “consumer” either to a commercial enterprise or to a person who is covered under the expression “person” defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, 1986 merely because it is a commercial enterprise. (Para 36) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Whether a commercial enterprise can be held to be a "consumer" in relation to dispute relating to insurance policy availed by it - Held yes in the facts of the case - hiring of insurance policy is clearly an act for indemnifying a risk of loss/damages and there is no element of profit generation - clarifies that it is not a general rule and depends on the facts of the case. (Para 44 to 47) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d) - Taking a wide meaning of the words “for any commercial purpose”, it would mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose, but in a case where goods purchased or services hired is an activity, which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be a commercial purpose. (Para 40) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Criminal Trial - Right to speedy trial, including speedy disposal of an appeal, is not the exclusive right of an accused, but an obligation of the court towards the society in general, and the victim in particular. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Electricity Act, 2003 – Appeal under Section 125 – Plea of Fraud, Coercion, Duress, or Undue Influence – Party that sets up plea of fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence must prima facie establish it by laying out material facts – Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) not to render findings on coercion without proper and specific pleadings, adequate evidence, or without conducting a probe, in a casual or cavalier way – Held, concurrent findings of APTEL and state commission unsustainable owing to the absence of evidence of coercion and particularity of pleadings beyond a bare allegation – Appeal allowed. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Electricity Act, 2003 - Supreme Court has lamented the practice of Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) and power generating companies pursuing endless litigation challenging the concurrent findings arrived at by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The Court has asked the Union of India through the Ministry of Power (MoP), to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by DISCOMS to the power generating companies under the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). All additional charges which are payable on account of orders, directions, Notifications, Regulations, etc., issued by the instrumentalities of the State, after the cut-off date specified in the PPAs, will have to be considered to be ‘Change in Law’ events for payment of compensation under the PPAs. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5 - The area to be declared as ESZ cannot be uniform and will be Protected Area specific. In some cases, it may be 10 kilometres on one side and 500 meters on the other side. In certain cases, it may not be possible to have a uniform minimum area by virtue of inter-state boundaries or a sea or a river beyond one side of the Protected Area. In any case, a detailed procedure is required to be followed as prescribed under Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules. Once such a notification is issued after following the procedure prescribed under the 1986 Rules, the ESZs will have to be as per the said notification. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Section 7 - Person convicted for unauthorized possession of LPG cylinders acquitted - SI who took action was found to be not an authorized officer who could take action under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order - In the absence of the authority and power with the Sub-Inspector to take action as per the Order, the proceedings initiated by him will be totally unauthorised and have to be struck down - Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statement in the ordinary course of events. There is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion. A fact discovered is an information supplied by the accused in his disclosure statement is a relevant fact and that is only admissible in evidence if something new is discovered or recovered at the instance of the accused which was not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused. The statement of an accused recorded while being in police custody can be split into its components and can be separated from the admissible portions. Such of those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be the legal evidence and the rest can be rejected. (Para 18) Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 – Confessional statement not liable to be rejected merely because it was recorded in a language not known to the accused through translator. Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 6 - Principle of res gestae - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction - The rule embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. What it means is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence. (Para 49) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) - The bench set aside the judgment of the Gujarat High Court where it had quashed the amending Notifications, i.e., Notification No. 33 / 2015-20 and 79 / 2017-Customs, dated 13.10.2017, by which the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had imposed the ‘pre-import’ and ‘physical export’ conditions for availing IGST and Compensation Cess exemption on imports made under ‘Advance Authorisation’. Union of India v. Cosmo Films Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) - The Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of a ‘pre-import condition’ incorporated in the Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020 (HBP) to claim exemption of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and GST Compensation Cess on inputs imported into India for manufacture of export goods, on the basis of ‘Advance Authorization’. Union of India v. Cosmo Films Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) - While holding that the concept of ‘preimport condition’ was not alien, the court observed that paragraph 4.13 (i) of the FTP itself empowered the DGFT to impose ‘pre-import conditions’ on articles other than those specified in Appendix-4J of the HBP. The bench remarked that the Gujarat High Court had failed to consider the same and had erroneously proceeded on the assumption that only the goods specified in the said Appendix were subject to the ‘pre-import condition’. Union of India v. Cosmo Films Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 367

General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (Himachal Pradesh) - Section 16B of the HPGST Act is not ultra vires any provision of law. The bench set aside the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court where it had held that Section 16-B was inconsistent with Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act and was ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. State of Himachal Pradesh v. A.J. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 366

General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (Himachal Pradesh); Section 16B - State cannot resort to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (HPLR) Act, 1954 for recovering sales tax dues as arrears of land revenue by creating a charge on the mortgaged property under Section 16-B of the HPGST Act, when proceedings under the HPLR Act were not initiated upon notice to the defaulters and the sum owed to the department had not been finally determined. State of Himachal Pradesh v. A.J. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 13(1)(ia) - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be read as "cruelty" - a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act - Long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. (Para 17, 18) Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The amendment brought to Section 153C of the Act, 1961 vide Finance Act, 2015 shall be applicable to searches conducted under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 before 01.06.2015, i.e., the date of the amendment. (Para 11) Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The Supreme Court has upheld the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at New Delhi to tax the income earned by the assessees incorporated under the Registration of Companies (Sikkim) Act, 1961, for the assessment years prior to the date the Income Tax Act, 1961 was extended to the State of Sikkim. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Income Tax Act, 1961; Chapter X - Any determination of the arm’s length price under Chapter X of the Act de hors the relevant guidelines stipulated under the Act and the Rules, can be considered as perverse, which may be considered as a substantial question of law. Thus, in each case, the High Court should examine whether the guidelines laid down in the Act and the Rules are followed while determining the arm’s length price. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 153A - Block assessment under Section 153A is linked with the search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A, respectively. Further, the object of assessment under Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search/requisition. Therefore, the jurisdiction of AO to make assessment is confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition. Income Tax Act, 1961 - Only in cases where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminating material in search/ requisition, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period, even in case of completed/unabated assessment. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 153A - No additions can be made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132 A, in respect of completed / unabated assessments. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 153C - The object and purpose of Section 153C is to address the persons other than the searched person - 2015 amendment was necessitated because of the narrow interpretation given to "belong/belongs" in Section 153C by the Delhi High Court in Pepsico Holdings which led to a situation where, though incriminating material pertaining to a third party / person was found during search proceedings under Section 132, the Revenue could not proceed against such a third party. (Para 10.8) Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 260A - High Court is not precluded from considering the determination of the arm’s length price determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in exercise of its powers under Section 260A - there cannot be any absolute proposition of law that in all cases where the Tribunal has determined the arm’s length price the same is final and cannot be the subject matter of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 263 - Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise revision powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act over the erroneous orders of the Assessing Officer which cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue - If due to an erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paville Projects Pvt Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 271C - The Supreme Court has ruled that no penalty is leviable under Section 271C on the mere delay in remittance of TDS after the same has been deducted by the assessee. The Court has held that the relevant words used in Section 271C(1)(a) are “fails to deduct”, and the same does not speak about belated remittance of the TDS - The Court ruled that the words “fails to deduct” occurring in Section 271C(1)(a) cannot be read as “failure to deposit/ pay the tax deducted”, while adding that the consequences of non-payment/belated remittance of the TDS are specifically provided by the Parliament under Sections 201(1A) and 276B of the Income Tax Act - The Court thus set aside the Kerala High Court’s order where it had upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271C for belated remittance of TDS. US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 285

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 6(3) - Since the control and management of the affairs of the assessee companies was with its auditor in New Delhi, the Income Tax Act, 1961 was applicable to them. Thus, the assesses who were incorporated under the company law of Sikkim, were resident Indian companies, and the income accrued to them/ earned by them in India for the assessment years prior to 1st April 1990, was taxable under the Income Tax Act. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 80-IB - Assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80- IB of the Act on the amount received / profit derived from the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) and the Duty Drawback Schemes. The bench held that the profit from the DEPB and the Duty Drawback claims cannot be said to be an income “derived from” the industrial undertaking. The court added that even otherwise, such an income is chargeable to tax as per Sections 28(iiid) and (iiie) of the Income Tax Act. Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 147, 148 - In case of completed/ unabated assessment, if no incriminating material is found during the search, the only remedy available to the revenue department would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the specified conditions. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - When a petition under Section 9 of IBC is filed based on several invoices and some of the invoices are time barred, then NCLT must consider the remaining invoices which are within limitation and whether they cross the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore. The Section 9 petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground that some of the invoices are time barred. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. v K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 270

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Uttar Pradesh); Section 16-FF(3) - the process of appointment of Teachers under the Act is not concluded without obtaining the mandatory approval of the District Inspector of Schools (“DIOS”). There is no vested right of the candidate to be appointed merely because the selection process has been completed. Section 16-FF(3) mandates the approval by the DIOS for appointment as the Head of Institution or Teacher. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Uttar Pradesh); Section 16-FF(3) - the Act does not contemplate ‘deemed appointment’ of a candidate if the District Inspector of Schools (“DIOS”) does not approve the proposal for appointment of the candidate within 15 days period, as given under Regulation 18. The selection process of the candidate concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted. Section 16-FF(3) of the Act itself makes approval by DIOS mandatory for appointment to the post of teacher. Therefore, a Regulation made under the said Act could not have provided for a ‘deemed appointment’. Subordinate legislation cannot transcend the prescription of a statutory provision. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Uttar Pradesh); Section 16-FF(3) - the vacancies to the teaching posts in Uttar Pradesh which arose prior to amendment of Regulation 17 are to be governed by amended rules. The amendment to Regulation 17 was notified on 12.03.2018 and it now prescribes a written examination for the selection of Teachers in minority institutions. It is a settled principle of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of existing Rules, which implies Rules in force as on the date of consideration. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Kerala VAT Act (KVAT), 2003 - Entry 44(5) of 3rd Schedule - Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers, Mortein Insect Killers, Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners, are not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) as ‘insecticides’, observing that Entry 44(5) is a general entry - The said products would fall under Sl.No.66 and 27(4) of Notification SRO 82/06, dated 21.01.2006, issued under the KVAT Act, which is a specific entry which covers ‘Mosquito Repellants’ and ‘stain busters/ stain removers’, respectively. The said products would thus attract a VAT of 12.5% under the said Notification, and not 4%. - Applying the dominant use test, the court held that Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners are essentially used as stain removers and deodorants and because they kill germs as well, they cannot be said to be insecticides classifiable under Entry 44(5). Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 306

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) - the partition having been accepted as per the “Naksha Be”, the joint status of the parties stood severed. The High Court misinterpreted the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and erred in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the appellate court. The Bench quashed the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) ; Section 118 - Disposal of other question - When a Revenue Officer takes a decision under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, for partition of property, then the said partition would stand completed and the joint status of the parties would stand severed; subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. (Para 30) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Definition of "ganja" under the Act does not include ganja seeds - Ganja seeds not a banned contraband. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 354

National Security Act, 1980 - Supreme Court terms as "shocking and unsustainable" the invocation of NSA in a revenue recovery case - Says NSA is to control the anti-social and anti national elements including secessionist, communal and pro-caste elements, that affect the services essential to the community, thereby posing a grave challenge - Holds that there was no application of mind in ordering the detention of the petitioner under NSA. Yusuf Malik v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 301

Penal Code 1860; Section 149 - if an offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. (Para 10.2) Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Penal Code, 1860 - Distinction between murder and the culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Explained. (Para 54) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B and 498A - Mere death of a wife under unnatural circumstances, in a matrimonial home, within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the husband for dowry death. (Para 23) Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Penal Code, 1860 - Trial Court has no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or life imprisonment without entitlement to remission for a fixed term, in serious crimes which carry the death penalty apart from life sentence as a sentencing option - The court took note that the Apex Court in Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613, has approved a special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years which may be longer than the minimum sentence specified in Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and may extend to considerably long periods, such as 30 years. However, Sriharan (2015) reserves the power to impose such special or fixed term sentences only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 4 to Section 300 - Essential requirement - Four conditions must be satisfied to bring the matter within Exception 4 - (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; and; that (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner - On a plain reading of Exception 4, it appears that the help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Para 58 & 59) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 4 to Section 300 - It is very difficult to accept the submission that the case would fall within the Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and such benefit be extended to the accused. Assuming for the moment that the incident had occurred in the heat of the moment and fight was also sudden, we should not overlook the fact that the appellants herein inflicted as many as nine blows with a dangerous weapon on the deceased who was unarmed and was helpless. For cases to fall within clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 61) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - For the charge of criminal conspiracy to be established, an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act must exist. In some cases, direct evidence to establish conspiracy may be absent, but when the lack of evidence is apparent, it is not safe to hold a person guilty under this section. To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to show a meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended common object. (Para 31) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - the accused cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy solely for having concealed the location of the incriminating materials / articles and, in the absence of any evidence establishing meeting of the minds. Given that all the other co­accused have been acquitted by the courts below, meaning they were innocent of the crime, the fundamental requirement of a criminal conspiracy is not met. Needless to say, the charge of criminal conspiracy also fails on the ground that a single person cannot hatch a conspiracy. (Para 32, 33) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - The charge of criminal conspiracy requires meeting of the minds prior to commission of offence, and with four of the five appeals being allowed and only the present appellant being convicted, the basic requirement of the section, that is of two or more persons agreeing to or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which is not per se illegal but it is done by illegal means, is not met. (Para 34) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and five persons are facing the trial may be separately, Section 149 IPC would be attracted. (Para 10) Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - the sine qua non for the application of an Exception to Section 300 always is that it is a case of murder but the accused claims the benefit of the Exception to bring it out of that Section and to make it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 57) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on the vital part of the body, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is a case of Section 302 of the IPC. (Para 60) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Prosecution has failed to prove the real genesis of the incident. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that the accused had any motive to commit the murder of her own father. On the contrary, her father had brought her to the house of PW.1 for treating her mental ailment. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the act was done by the accused, with the intention to cause the death of the deceased. The case would fall under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC and as such, conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would not be tenable. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. Since the accused has been incarcerated for a period of more than 12 years, the said sentence would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-I of the IPC. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 – the Supreme Court commutes death sentence of accused who murdered his sister & her lover from another caste; takes note of 'social pressure’ - Accused, who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young boy of about 25 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence would further reveal that the accused have not acted in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there is only single injury inflicted on both the deceased. As such, the present case cannot be considered to be ‘rarest of rare’ case. Thus, the Court after taking into consideration, the young age of the accused at the time of incidence, the manner in which the crime was committed, no criminal antecedent of the accused and the report of the Probation Officer as well as the Superintendent of the Correctional Home in which the accused is serving his sentence, commuted the death sentence imposed on the accused to the life imprisonment. Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaint, it is not appreciable at all, how the appellants are alleged to have committed the offence of cheating. The ingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfied. There is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, even on bare reading of the averments and allegations in the complaint, no case even remotely for the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. (Para 5.6) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 279, 304A – Motor Accident Case – Reduction of sentence of convict – Object of Indian Penal Code is to punish offenders for offences under the act – Indian Penal Code punitive and deterrent – Corrective measures ought to be recognised while sentencing convict but deterrence became imperative necessity under certain circumstances – Expressing undue sympathy by imposing inadequate sentence harms justice system by causing the erosion of public confidence in efficacy of law – Held, undue sympathy expressed by the high court unsustainable and order liable to be quashed and set aside thereby restoring the original sentence imposed by lower courts – Appeal allowed. State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 - Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 29A – Allegation that the Memorandum annexed with the application for registration was false – Held, Even the application under Section 29A of the Act, 1951 was made as far as back in the year 1989 and thereafter even the respondent No. 1 filed the complaint before the ECI, which came to be dismissed by the ECI and thereafter the present complaint has been filed in the year 2009, i.e., after a period of 20 years from the date of filing of the application for registration under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951, which was made in the year 1989. Even assuming the complaint’s averments to be true, do not make out the ingredients of the offences, for which the learned Trial Court has passed the summoning order. (Para 5.12, 6) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 463, 464 and 471 - For the offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. Therefore, making the false documents is sine qua non - Making a false claim and creating and producing the false document both are different and distinct. (Para 5.9) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Police Regulations (Madhya Pradesh) - As per Regulation 70A, out-of-turn promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(e) - Second proviso is in the nature of additional safeguard for the public servant who are accused of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act against an investigation by a police officer without the knowledge and consent of superior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. A superior police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass an order before an investigation, if any, for such offence is commenced. It is needless to point-out that, before directing such investigation, the Superintendent of Police or an officer superior to him is required to apply his mind to the information and come to an opinion that the investigation on such allegations is necessary. (Para 88) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 - To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused. (Para 11) Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Registration Act, 1908 - Effect of Tamil Nadu amendment by which Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act has been inserted which makes agreement to sell immovable property valued above Rs 100 compulsorily registrable - Held, the amendment will not affect proviso to Section 49, which allows unregistered sale agreements to be received in evidence. (Para 12, 13) R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Registration Act, 1908; Proviso to Section 49 - An unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. (Para 12, 13) R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Registration Act, 1908; Section 17 - High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to alter or amend registered lease deed. (Para 18) Gwalior Development Authority v. Bhanu Pratap Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 25B(8) - When the Rent Controller permits eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement by the Landlord after perusing facts and evidence on record, then such order cannot be set aside by the High Court in review under Section 25-B(8) upon the ground that the description of property was not proper in the application. Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 29A - Not expressed anything on the Constitution of the Party - Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) and the present order shall not affect the pending proceedings before the High Court of Delhi, which is reported to be pending against the order passed by the ECI. (Para 7) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 - Supreme Court passed guidelines to ensure better accessibility for candidates with disability to appear in CLAT examination. Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 349

Sales Tax Act, 1969 (Gujarat) - Penalty and interest leviable under Sections 45(6) and 47(4A), respectively, are statutory and mandatory in nature and there is no discretion vested in the Commissioner / Assessing Officer to levy or not to levy the penalty and interest other than as prescribed. State of Gujarat v. Saw Pipes Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Sales Tax Act, 1976 (Tripura) - Memorandum issued by the Government to deduct the tax at 4% and the bills to be paid to the transferors cannot be said to be ultra vires to TST Act - Mere providing for a mode of recovery and/or providing for machinery/mechanism to recover the tax to be paid by the transferor/supplier from the person buying the goods deducting the tax at source and depositing the same with the Revenue cannot be said to be ultra vires to TST Act and the Rules. State of Tripura v. Chandan Deb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 280

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule 9(5) of SARFAESI Rules cannot be pressed into service since the auction purchaser was not informed regarding the proceedings pending before DRT at the time of auction or even thereafter - Directs refund of the deposit forfeited by the bank. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Writ petitions in SARFAESI matters - Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Specific Relief Act 1963 - In sale of immovable property there is no presumption that time is the essence of the contract, however, the court may infer performance in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident from the express terms of the contract, from the nature of the property, and from the surrounding circumstances. (Para 32) Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Specific Relief Act 1963 - When specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence does not arise - Time would not be of essence in a contract wherein the obligations of one party are dependent on the fulfillment of obligations of another party. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 31 - Action instituted under Section 31 for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem. Asian Avenues Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Syed Shoukat Hussain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 369

Stamps Act, 1899; Proviso to Section 27 - Registration Authorities are empowered under the proviso to Section 27 of the Indian Stamps Act, as inserted by the Andhra Pradesh Amending Act, 1988, to inspect the property, which is the subject matter of the instrument, make necessary enquiries and satisfy itself that the provisions of Section 27, which requires that all facts affecting the levy of Stamp Duty are fully and truly set forth in instrument, are complied with. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 8 - In the absence of an express or implied indication, a transfer of land would pass to the transferee all things attached to the earth, including the plant and machinery embedded on the land - Merely because no express reference to plant and machinery was contained in the Recital Clause of the Sale Deed, it cannot mean that the interest in the plant and machinery which stood attached to the land which was scheduled in the Deed, was not conveyed to the vendee. Therefore, the value of plant and machinery must also be ascertained for computation of stamp duty - Only such plant and machinery, which was permanently embedded to the earth and answered the description of the immovable property, as defined in law, can be said to have been conveyed under the deed. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - Materials placed on record do not state reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true - bail granted to two alleged Maoists. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972; Section 30 – A tenant may deposit rent in the Court on refusal of the rent by the landlord, but this position only lasts till the landlord expresses his willingness to receive the rent. If the landlord serves formal notice expressing willingness, the tenant upon receipt of notice is under an obligation to tender the rent at least at the rate admitted to the landlord. Man Singh v. Shamim Ahmad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 290

Waqf Act 1995 - a beneficiary of a waqf is not a fiduciary - The beneficiary of a waqf is endowed with rights in terms of the waqf deed. We are unable to cull out any duty, as such, to protect the interest of another. No doubt, it could be said that as the property in a waqf, vests in the Almighty, there must be a concern and, undoubtedly, a moral duty to act in a manner that the object of the wakf is fostered. But a beneficiary is not like a Trustee, who assumes possession in his character as a Trustee, coming under the restraint of discarding his character as Trustee and donning the robes of an encroacher or a person asserting hostile title. (Para 65, 66) Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Waqf Act, 1995 - A beneficiary of a waqf, however, being neither a trustee nor a co-owner of waqf property, can acquire title through adverse possession even if it is the property of the waqf it is found - No embargo against a beneficiary of a waqf claiming acquisition of title by adverse possession. (Para 55, 63) Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 – Rule 5(v) – Pension - Qualifying service for pension – Service rendered as work charge – Dispute over counting of the period of work charged services for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pensionable service - Entire service as work-charged employee cannot be counted towards pension – The work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension or quantum of pension. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 268
2. Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 307
3. Anil Agarwal Foundation v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 300
4. Archita v. National Medical Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 275
5. Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 349
6. Asian Avenues Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Syed Shoukat Hussain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 369
7. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 272
8. B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303
9. Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279
10. Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v Walchandnagar Industries Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 288
11. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333
12. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292
13. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283
14. Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341
15. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 281
16. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v. Suzlon Energy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 298
17. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paville Projects Pvt Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 282
18. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur v. Prakash Chand Lunia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 348
19. Deepak Kumar Azad @ Pappu v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 278
20. Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 361
21. Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296
22. District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 331
23. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310
24. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326
25. G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311
26. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327
27. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329
28. Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294
29. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315
30. Gwalior Development Authority v. Bhanu Pratap Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 340
31. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 354
32. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363
33. In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 332
34. In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 334
35. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351
36. In re: T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 362
37. Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274
38. Isolators and Isolators v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330
39. Jaya Thakur v Government of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 309
40. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324
41. Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347
42. Ka Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284
43. Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 368
44. Land and Building Department through Secretary v. Attro Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302
45. M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 370
46. M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276
47. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
48. Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358
49. Makhijani Pushpak Harish v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 345
50. Man Singh v. Shamim Ahmad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 290
51. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291
52. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308
53. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343
54. Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Prem Prakash Rajagaria, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 344
55. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325
56. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313
57. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. v K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 270
58. NTPC Ltd v. SPML Infra Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 287
59. Phanindra Reddy, IAS v. G. Subramanian, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 295
60. Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293
61. Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266
62. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346
63. Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 297
64. R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 304
65. Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Arfat Petrochemicals, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 337
66. Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353
67. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 306
68. Registrar General High Court of Karnataka v. Sri M.Narasimha Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 286
69. Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352
70. Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323
71. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328
72. Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 299
73. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321
74. Seethamal v. Narayanasamy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 342
75. Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312
76. Siju Kurian v State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338
77. Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314
78. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320
79. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 350
80. State of Gujarat v. Saw Pipes Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319
81. State of Himachal Pradesh v. A.J. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 366
82. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 277
83. State of Maharashtra v. Renuka Shinde, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 305
84. State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 267
85. State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316
86. State of Telangana v. Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 356
87. State of Tripura v. Chandan Deb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 280
88. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360
89. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335
90. State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365
91. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357
92. Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359
93. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322
94. Suneetha Narreddy v. Y.S. Avinash Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 355
95. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271
96. Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318
97. Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 289
98. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371
99. Union of India v. All India Judges Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 273
100. Union of India v. Cosmo Films Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 367
101. US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax , 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 285
102. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 339
103. Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 364
104. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336
105. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317
106. Yusuf Malik v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 301