Administrative Law

Administrative Law – Well established principle of - An adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. [Para 17] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30

Administrative Law - Principles of - MP Jain and SN Jain’s treatise - If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him - the principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. [Para 17] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30

Administrative Law - T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India - A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication - the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication - if it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. [Para 18] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30

Administrative Law - MD, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar - in order to set aside the order of punishment, the aggrieved person must be able prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to non-disclosure- to prove prejudice, he must prove that had the material been disclosed to him the outcome or the punishment would have been different. [Para 19] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30

Decision will be vitiated if materials are not disclosed to the affected party. Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30

Arbitration

12 month’s time limit under Section 29A Arbitration Act not applicable to international commercial arbitration. TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Starting point of limitation u/section 34(3) Arbitration Act in cases of suo motu correction of award: Supreme Court explains. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Aysuh Mission

Operating Guidelines of the National AYSUH Mission - Paragraph 4(vi)(b) - Order for the purchase of Ayurvedic medicines issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh in favour of Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (IMPCL) - Inviting tenders from the entities is the most transparent and non-arbitrary method of allocation that can be undertaken - The State must henceforth purchase Ayurvedic medicines only through a free and transparent procedure such as tenders. The State may deviate from this rule and procure medicines by nomination only if exceptional circumstances exist. In such a situation, the State must demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances on the basis of cogent material. (Para 31) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Bail

Supreme Court disapproves Allahabad HC dismissing several bail applications on the same day for default. Rahul Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 64

Supreme Court overturned a bail condition imposed by the High Court that a person accused of illegally claiming Input Tax Credit must deposit Rs. 70 lakhs, the alleged amount of improperly claimed ITC - Centre conceded that such a condition is unsustainable when final assessment has not taken place. Subhash Chauhan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 61

Process of criminal law not for money recovery; Bail can be granted irrespective of payment of money involved. Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail / suspension of sentence. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Cheque

Section 138 NI Act - Accused relies on income tax returns to show complainant did not have financial capacity; Supreme Court affirms acquittal. Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Cinema

Cinema theatres can prohibit viewers from bringing food articles from outside. K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Cinema Theatres- Supreme Court upholds the right of cinema theatres and multiplexes to prohibit the taking of food and beverages from outside. K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Right of cinema theatres to prohibit outside food - The condition of entry is imposed as a direct result of the exercise of the right of cinema owners to carry on a business or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The commercial logic of prohibiting movie goers from carrying their own food to the cinema hall is to stimulate and boost a vital aspect of the business – the sale of food and beverages. If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt. While movie goers may have no choice but to sign on the proverbial dotted line (and thereby not carry any food of their own into the theatre) in order to enter the cinema hall and watch a movie of their choice, this does not by itself render the condition of entry unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. (Para 31) K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Restriction on bringing food and beverages in theatres from outside is not unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. (Para 30) - Whether or not to watch a movie is entirely within the choice of viewers. If viewers seek to enter a cinema hall, they must abide by the terms and conditions subject to which entry is granted. Having reserved the right of admission, it is open to theatre owners to determine whether food from outside the precincts of the cinema hall should be permitted to be carried inside (Para 27) K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Civil Law

Order XLI Rule 5 CPC - Mere filing of appeal would not operate as a stay of decree. Sanjiv Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 63

Decree of possession can't be passed in favour of plaintiff merely because defendants could not fully establish their title. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Coal

State government can be ‘person interested’ in getting compensation under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Company Law

Section 59 Companies Act 2013 - NCLT cannot excercise parallel jurisdiction with SEBI for addressing violations of SEBI Regulations. IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Constitutional Law

Purse seine fishing - Supreme Court passes restricted interim order allowing the purse-seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu but within the Exclusive Economic Zone with conditions. Fisherman Care v. Govt of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 58

Legislature cannot directly overrule a judgment; but can retrospectively remove its foundation to make it ineffective. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57

The Constitution does not prohibit appointment of lawyer practising in the Supreme Court as Judge of High Courts. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on right to free speech. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Article 19 & 21 rights can be enforced against private individuals & entities: Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

No one can be penalised for holding an opinion not in confirmity with constitutional values. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Minister's speech a 'constitutional tort' if it leads to acts of officers harming persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

The Prime Minister / Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over other ministers. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Ministers' Statements in official capacity cannot be vicariously attributed to Govt: Supreme Court; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Contract Law

Party estopped from questioning the amount levied as per contract after signing it. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department v. Rattan India Power Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 32

Awarding Govt. contracts through public tenders preferable; Departure from tender route must be reasonable. Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Government Contracts - Government action must be just, fair and reasonable and in accordance with the principles of Article 14; and (ii) While government can deviate from the route of tenders or public auctions for the grant of contracts, the deviation must not be discriminatory or arbitrary. The deviation from the tender route has to be justified and such a justification must comply with the requirements of Article 14 - Government contracts involve expenditure out of the public exchequer. Since they involve payment out of the public exchequer, the moneys expended must not be spent arbitrarily. The State does not have absolute discretion while spending public money. (Para 21-22) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Tenders - The process of inviting tenders ensures a level playing field for competing entities. While there may be situations which warrant a departure from the precept of inviting tenders or conducting public auctions, the departure must not be unreasonable or discriminatory. (Para 16) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Criminal Law

Section 482 Cr.P.C. | Pendency of suit concealed, cloak of criminal offence given to civil dispute: Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings. Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Criminal Investigation - A defective investigation is not always fatal to the prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. While in such a case the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version -Non-examination of the Investigating Officer must result in prejudice to the accused; if no prejudice is caused, mere non-examination would not render the prosecution case fatal - Though mere defects in the investigative process by itself cannot constitute ground for acquittal, it is the legal obligation of the Court to examine carefully in each case the prosecution evidence de hors the lapses committed by the Investigating Officer to find out whether the evidence brought on record is at all reliable and whether such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth. (Para 28, 42) Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Criminal Trial - The circumstance that most of the witnesses were related to the deceased does not per se exclude their testimony. (Para 14) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Chargesheets not 'public documents', Can't direct investigating agencies to upload them on websites. Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Chargesheets - Supreme Court refuses to direct that chargesheets filed by investigating agencies should be uploaded on a public website for public access- Court says that the directions in Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India (2016) 9 SCC 473 regarding uploading of FIR cannot be extended to chargesheets - Court directed the copies of the FIRs to be published within 24 hours on the police websites or on the websites of the State Government, looking to the interest of the accused and so that innocent accused are not harassed and they are able to get the relief from the competent court and they are not taken by surprise. Therefore, the directions issued by this Court are in favour of the accused, which cannot be stretch to the public at large so far as the chargesheets are concerned. (Para 4.1) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Default bail can be cancelled on merits after presentation of chargesheet. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

View that default bail cannot be cancelled on merits will reward lethargic investigation. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Grant of Remission - Presiding Judge should give adequate reasons while giving opinion under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. Jaswant Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 33

'Reasonable time should be given for investigation': SC sets aside madras HC order quashing FIR against youtuber Maridhas in 4 days. State represented by the Inspector of Police v. Maridass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Supreme Court takes exception to Madras High Court quashing an FIR in four days without giving adequate time for investigation. State represented by the Inspector of Police v. Maridass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 25

"Private civil dispute converted to criminal proceedings": Supreme Court quashes complaint alleging offence under SC-ST (prevention of Atrocities) Act. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Magistrate Must Examine If Complaint Constitutes Only A Civil Wrong Before Summoning Accused. Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

"Burden to prove mental incapacity is on the defence": Supreme Court upholds conviction of man accused of killing his two sons. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Demonetisation

'Any' means 'All' : Supreme Court says Centre can demonetise all series of bank notes invoking Section 26(2) of RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Central Government proposes demonetisation - it must seek the opinion of the Central Board of RBI as RBI is the sole authority to regulate circulation of bank notes and secure monetary stability and generally operate the currency and credit system of the country and to maintain price stability - opinion of the Central Board ought to be an independent and frank opinion - the Central Government can move ahead with demonetisation irrespective of positive or negative opinion of the Central Board, but by enacting a legislation or by way of an Ordinance and not an executive notification. [Para 21] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Demonetisation is not illegal merely because the proposal originated from the central govt; no breach of Sec 26(2) RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Demonetisation is not invalid merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Demonetisation decision making process valid, Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Discussion in parliament on demonetisation would have given it legitimacy: Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Objective of demonetisation - the Court does not have the expertise to go into the question whether the object with which demonetisation was effected is served or not - mere errors of Government are nor subject to judicial review, only palpably arbitrary ones are declared void. [Para 247 - 252] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Period for Exchange of notes - 52 days’ period was not unreasonable - if the time for such exchange are not limited, the high denomination bank notes could be circulated and transferred without the knowledge of the authorities concerned, from one person to another and such transferee would have demand exchange of their notes on any subsequent day - thus, the very purpose of demonetisation would be defeated. [Para 286 - 288] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

RBI has no independent power to accept demonetised notes beyond the period specified in centre's notification. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

RBI didn't independently apply its mind in recommending demonetisation, Entire exercise carried out in 24 hours : Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Supreme Court by 4:1 majority holds that the decision-making process behind the demonetisation of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 currency notes in 2016 was lawful - Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian in majority - Justice BV Nagarathna in minority. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Whether demonetisation achieved its objectives is not relevant to decide its legality. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Dowry

Criminal proceedings for dowry demand cannot be quashed merely because divorce petition is pending. X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Environment

Make environmental impact assessment mandatory for urban development, recommends supreme court; cites condition of bengaluru as warning. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24

The Supreme Court prohibits conversion of residential units into floor-wise apartments in Chandigarh phase 1 to protect 'corbusier' heritage. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24

Chandigarh Master Plan - Supreme Court prohibits conversion of independent residential units as apartments in Chandigarh Phase 1 to preserve the heritage status of 'Corbusier' City-Any fragmentation, division, bifurcation, and apartmentalisation of a residential unit in Phase I of Chandigarh is prohibited. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24

Environmental Impact Assessment - Supreme Court recommends making environmental assessment mandatory for urban development- We therefore appeal to the Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels to make necessary provisions for carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment studies before permitting urban development. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24

Evidence Law

Section 27 Evidence Act - Recovery cannot be relied upon when the statement of the accused is not recorded. Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Last Seen Theory - Last­ seen theory comes into play where the time­gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. If the gap between the time of last seen and the deceased found dead is long, then the possibility of other person coming in between cannot be ruled out - Solely on the basis of last seen theory, the conviction could not have been recorded. (Para 16, 17, 29) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Circumstantial Evidence - Golden principles with regard to conviction in a case which rests entirely on circumstantial evidence - It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict the accused - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved" - The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved - There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 9-10) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Standard of proof - Standard of proof in criminal proceedings differs with that in civil proceedings - Adjudication in civil matters is based on preponderance of probabilities whereas adjudication in criminal cases is based on the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent and the guilt of the accused should be proved to the hilt and the proof should be beyond all reasonable doubt. (Para 29-30) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

'Last seen' circumstance cannot be the sole basis for conviction: Supreme Court acquits murder accused. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Last Seen Doctrine - The “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance. (Para 23) Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Circumstantial Evidence- The prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence - These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest. (Para 21) Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Family Pension

Child adopted by widow after death of govt. employee not entitled to family pension. Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Family Pension - Family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to extend to them some succour. (Para 12) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Hate Speech

Hate speech strikes at foundational values of the Constitution; Political parties must control speeches of members: Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Health

Supreme Court asks Delhi govt. to consider registry's request for additional medical facilities in SC premises. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 23

Health facilities for Supreme Court lawyers - CGHS health facilities cannot be extended to lawyers - Court records satisfaction with health facilities in the Court campus - Asks the Health Secretary, Delhi Government to consider and decide the requisition moved by the Supreme Court Registry seeking additional health facilities in the Supreme Court premises such services of a number of specialists from different fields such as Cardiologists, Ortho, ENT etc. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 23

Income Tax

Income Tax Act - For block assessment, normals procedure not applicable; Interest can be levied without sec 158bc notice. K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Exclusion of 'Old Indian Settlers' from definition of Sikkimese in Section 10(26AAA) Income Tax Act unconstitutional. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Income Tax Act | Writ Petition can be entertained to examine if conditions to issue Section 148 notice are satisfied. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Non-banking finance & leasing companies not liable to pay interest tax on instalments paid under hire purchase agreement. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Sabka Vishwas Scheme: Supreme Court grants relief to company which missed deadline due to IBC moratorium. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Delay in filing CIRP application condonable on sufficient reasons. Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Insurance

The Supreme Court directs insurer to pay reinstatement value of goods damaged in fire instead of depreciated value. Oswal Plastic Industries v. Manager, Legal Dept., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 34

Insurance Contract - Fire and Special Perils policy - Supreme Court directs insurer to pay reinstatement value of the goods damaged and not the depreciated value, because as per the policy, in case the insurance company is unable to reinstate or repair because of some municipal or other regulations, it shall be liable to pay such sum as would be requisite to reinstate or repair such property. Oswal Plastic Industries v. Manager, Legal Dept., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 34

Interpretation of Statutes

The provisions of the statute are to be read as they are. Nothing to be added and or taken away. Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Interpretation of Statutes - In construing a word in a statute, caution has to be exercised in adopting a meaning ascribed to that word or concept in another statute. (Para 15) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Taxing Statutes - In case of an exemption notification/exemption provision, the same is required to be construed literally and the person claiming the exemption must satisfy all the conditions of exemption provision. (Para 8.2) AMD Industries Ltd; v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18

If the legislature confers the later enactment with a non-obstante clause, it means the legislature wanted the subsequent / later enactment to prevail. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Judicial Service

Supreme Court criticises centre for sitting over collegium proposals for judges' transfer, says it gives impression of 'third party interferences'. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Transferred Judge does not go with the label 'Bar Judge' or 'Service Judge': Supreme Court makes important clarification on categorising vacancies. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Labour Law

The ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation so that social security can be given to employees. ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Land Law

Land cannot be kept under temporary acquisition for years, It violates right to property under Article 300A. Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55

Sec 24(2) RFCTLARR Act - Benefit of lapse not available if delay in taking possession was due to pending litigation. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Legal Maxims

Nocitur a Sociis - the meaning of a phrase must be construed having regard to the words immediately surrounding it. (Para 12.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Limitation

Section 5 Limitation Act - 'Suffficient Cause' is the cause for which a party could not be blamed. Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Medical

Prescribing lesser qualifications for medical practitioners serving rural areas is unconstitutional. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57

The Supreme Court strikes down Assam law allowing diploma holders to treat specified diseases and perform minor procedures. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Motor Accident

Can employee insured under ESI Act claim motor accident compensation? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Rajkumar Agrawal v. Vehicle Tata Venture, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 62

Murder Trial

'Entitled to benefit of doubt': Supreme Court acquits accused in a 1985 murder case. Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Mere long standing pre-existing dispute will not attract exception of 'grave & sudden provocation'. Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Penal Law

The Parole period can't be included in the period of actual imprisonment. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10

Parole Period - For the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded-If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get the parole for number of times as there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10

Possession

Decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property - A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner - The defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Power of Attorney

Is non-production of power of attorney fatal to title suit? Supreme Court split verdict. Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Precedent

Judicial discipline also requires that the judgment/decision of this Court should be considered and read thoroughly. (Para 5.1) Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Property

When a person has relinquished rights in father's self acquired property, his sons are estopped from claiming share. Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Regulatory Bodies

Governance of certain sectors through independent regulatory bodies will be far more effective than being under the direct control and supervision of Ministries or Departments of the Government. Regulatory control by an independent body composed of domain experts enables a consistent, transparent, independent, proportionate, and accountable administration and development of the sector. All this is achieved by way of legislative enactments which establish independent regulatory bodies with specified powers and functions. They exercise powers and functions, which have a combination of legislative, executive, and judicial features. (Para 27) IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Sarfaesi

Burden is on borrower to prove that secured properties are agricultural lands. K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 13

MSMED Act 'dues' will not prevail over SARFAESI Proceedings. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Borrower has to pre-deposit 50% of which amount in appeal before drat u/s 18 SARFAESI Act? The Supreme Court explains. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Specific Performance

Supreme Court bench delivers split verdict in civil appeal from specific performance suit. C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Adverse inference cannot be drawn against a plaintiff merely because he did not produce his bank passbook. Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 17

Service Law

Punishment imposed by disciplinary authority can be interfered with only if it is 'strikingly disproportionate'. Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Rajasthan Non-governmental Educational Institutions Act - Prior approval of director of education required to remove employee. Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Service Law - Joining the service of a disciplined force like CISF after suppressing criminal cases is a grave misconduct - Removal from service justified. (Para 9, 13) Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44

Service Law - Power of judicial review exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring "that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court -When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with. (Para 10) Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44

A person cannot be deemed to be in service when the first dismissal order is in force. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42

Service Law - SBI Officers Service Rules - When the first dismissal order against a person in service is in force, irrespective of all pending litigations or his age of superannuation, he cannot be deemed to be continuing in service. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42

Difference in pay-scale based on academic qualifications is valid even if the nature of work is the same. Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35

Service Law - Educational qualification can be a ground for different pay scale even if the nature of duties are the same - Pay scale difference in the posts of Nursing Assistant and Staff Nurse in Border Security Force upheld - Nature of work may be more or less the same but the scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. (Paras 4.4, 5) Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35

Tax

'Premature for High Court to opine on tax evasion': Supreme Court sets aside HC order which quashed notice under Section 130 CGST Act. State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Levy of additional special road taxes not a penalty, but regulatory: Supreme Court upholds Section 3A(3) HPMVT Act. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 27

Taxing Statutes - Validity is to be ascertained on the following three aspects: (1) Whether it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional; (2) Whether it is regulatory or compensatory in nature; and (3) Whether there is any repugnancy with the provisions in the Central enactment - Any tax legislation may not be easily interfered with. The Courts must show judicial restraint to interfere with tax legislation unless it is shown and proved that such taxing statute is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional. Taxing statutes cannot be placed or tested or viewed on the same principles as laws affecting civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. The test of taxing statutes would be viewed on more stringent tests and the law makers should be given greater latitude. (Para 25, 41) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 27

Goods manufactured on “diversification” must be “different”, “distinct” & “separate” in nature to claim exemption u/sec 4-A (5) UP Trade Tax Act. AMD Industries Ltd; v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 18

Test of Proportionality

a) it is designated for a proper purpose; b) the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment of that purpose; c) measures undertaken are necessary, there are no alternative measures; and d) there needs to be a proper relation between importance of achieving the purpose and the social importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right - the purpose of demonetisation was elimination of fake currency; black money and terror financing, which is a proper purpose - there is a reasonable nexus between the measure of demonetisation with the purpose of addressing issues of fake currency bank notes, black money, drug trafficking and terror financing - court does not possess the expertise to decide what alternative measure could have been undertaken - there is a proper relation between importance of curbing the menace of fake currency, black money, drug trafficking and terror financing and demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes - even if there was reasonable restriction, it was in the larger public interest. [Para 266 - 276, 279 - 281] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Uniform Civil Code

States have power to constitute committees on Uniform Civil Code. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 22

Wikipedia

'Wikipedia not completely dependable': Supreme Court cautions Courts and adjudicating authorities. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Wikipedia - Adjudicating authorities especially Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) extensively referred to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their conclusion - While we expressly acknowledge the utility of these platforms which provide free access to knowledge across the globe, but we must also sound a note of caution against using such sources for legal dispute resolution - These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd­sourced and user­generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information - The courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources. (Para 14) Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Woman

'Woman not a chattel, has identity of her own; marriage won't take away her identity': Supreme Court strikes down income tax provision. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Words and Phrases

“In relation to” - The use of the phrase “in relation to” in statutes is with a view to bring one person or thing into association or connection with another person or thing. The direct or indirect nature of such association or connection depends on the context. (Para 11.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Largesse - Government actions aimed at ensuring the well-being of citizens cannot be perceived through the lens of a ‘largess’. The use of such terminology belittles the sanctity of the social contract that the ‘people of India’ entered into with the State to protect and safeguard their interests - Terming all actions of government, ranging from social security benefits, jobs, occupational licenses, contracts and use of public resources – as government largesse results in doctrinal misconceptions. The reason is that this conflates the State’s power with duty. (Para 11) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 29A - Post 2019 amendment, the time limit of twelve months as prescribed in Section 29A is applicable to only domestic arbitrations and the twelve-month period is only directory in nature for an international commercial arbitration - Arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavor to complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date of competition of pleadings and are not bound to abide by the time limit prescribed for domestic arbitrations. (Para 25-29) TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 29A - Section 29A(1), as amended, is remedial in nature, it should be applicable to all pending arbitral proceedings as on the effective date i.e., 30 August 2019 - The amendment is remedial in that it carves out international commercial arbitrations from the rigour of the timeline of six months. (Para 34) TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 33(3) and 34(3) - The starting point for the limitation in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party - Once the arbitral award has been amended or corrected, it is the corrected award which has to be challenged and not the original award. The original award stands modified, and the corrected award must be challenged by filing objections. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(3) - Purpose and Object - To enable the parties to study, examine and understand the award, thereupon, if the party chooses and is advised, draft and file objections within the time specified. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(3) Proviso - Court has the power to condone the delay for further period of thirty days - Application for condonation of delay can be filed at any time till the proceedings are pending. Of course, exercise of discretion and whether or not the delay should be condoned is a different matter. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - A case where a child is born to the deceased government servant after his death has to be contrasted with a case where a child is adopted by the widow of a government servant after his death. The former category of heirs are covered under the definition of family since such a child would be a posthumous child of the deceased government servant. (Para 14) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Sections 8 and 12 - Family Pension - A son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, could not be included within the definition of ‘family’ - Rights and entitlements of an adopted son of a Hindu widow, as available in Hindu Law, as against his adoptive family, cannot axiomatically be held to be available to such adopted son, as against the government, in a case specifically governed by extant pension rules. (Para 10-12) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - The phrase “in relation to a government servant” would indicate that the categories of persons listed thereunder, such as wife, husband, judicially separated wife or husband, son or unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, adopted son or daughter, etc. are sought to be brought into association with the deceased government servant. The context requires that association or connection of such persons with the deceased government servant must be direct and not remote. The said Rule requires that the family member must have a close nexus with the deceased government servant, and must have been dependent on him during his lifetime. (Para 11.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines - Portable - Weight cannot be the sole factor to determine the factum of portability. Instead, the essential ingredients to logically establish whether an ADP is ‘portable’ are (1) their ability to be carried around easily which includes all aspects such as weight and their dimensions- In appropriate cases, this assessment would also take into consideration the necessary accessories which are required for safe and efficient usage such as mounted stands or any power adapters (1) the ADP must be suitable for daily transit of a consumer and would include aspects such as durability to withstand frequent commute and damage protection - The Concerned Goods are not portable for the reasons (1) the diagonal dimension of the Concerned Goods being minimum of the length of 18.5 inches and the same needs to be transported along with the power cable as well as the applicable stand in most cases if it is to be mounted and (2) there being no protective case designed by the markets for daily transport for these Concerned Goods. Such requirements make the Concerned Goods unable to be carried around easily during daily transit. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Since the customs authorities wanted to classify the goods differently, the burden of proof to showcase the same was on them. (Para 23) Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017; Section 130 - Observing that it was "premature" on the part of the High Court to quash a show-cause notice issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act by invoking Article 226 jurisdiction, the Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949; Section 9, 10 - The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF - Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination. (Para 6) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 ; Section 2(d), 11 - The State Government being the original owner can be said to be deemed lessor - The State Government can be said to be the ‘person interested’ in getting the compensation. (Para 5) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957; Section 18(a) - The compensation/rental payable with respect to the lands by the lessee/deemed lessee is altogether different than the royalty. Royalty is for extraction of minerals in the lands in question - The amount of royalty cannot be mixed with the compensation/loss caused to the State Government due to loss of land and surface land rent as the State Government is entitled for the adequate compensation. (Para 5.1, 6) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 5 - Unless the appeal is listed and there is an interim order, the mere filing of the appeal would not operate as a stay. Sanjiv Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 63

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 173, 207 - Direction to publicly upload chargesheets against the scheme of Cr.P.C. - If all the chargesheets and relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency. Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments. (Para 4.5) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 156(3) - In order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged. (Para 10) Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 156(3) - Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings after noting that the attempt was to give a cloak of criminal offence to a civil dispute. The Court noted that the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were vague and did not attract the essential ingredients of the offences. Also, the pendency of a civil suit on the issue was suppressed in the application. Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 482 - Criminal proceedings quashed - the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue-coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. (Para 10, 11) Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 482 - Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law. (Para 3) Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Default bail can be cancelled on merits - there is no absolute bar that once a person is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail cannot be cancelled on merits and his bail can be cancelled on other general grounds like tampering with the evidence/witnesses; not cooperating with the investigating agency and/or not cooperating with the concerned Trial Court etc. [Para 11] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - the bail so granted is not on merits - when an accused is released on default bail they are released on furnishing the bail bond by them on the failure of the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file the chargesheet within the stipulated time mentioned therein - the object and purpose of proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is to impress upon the need for expeditious investigation within the prescribed time limit and to prevent laxity - the object is to inculcate a sense of its urgency and on default the Magistrate shall release the accused if he is ready and does furnish bail - it cannot be said that order of release on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an order on merits. [Para 8.1] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - deemed to be released under provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C., which includes Section 437 and 439 also - deeming fiction under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be interpreted to the length of converting the order of default bail, which is not on merits as if passed on merits. [Para 8.1] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - the merits brought out in the chargesheet and attending circumstances are relevant, as the bail was granted due to default of the investigating officer without Court's adverting to the merits but strong grounds are necessary to cancel the bail and mere filing of the chargesheet itself is not sufficient. [Para 9.2, 9.4, 9.7] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - Order granting bail shall be deemed to be under Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. and that order can be cancelled when a case for cancellation is made out under Section 437(5) or 439(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 9.6, 9.7] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - In a case where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and thereafter on filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime and considering the grounds set out in Sections 437(5) and Section 439(2), his bail can be cancelled on merits and the Courts are not precluded from considering the application for cancelation of the bail on merits. However, mere filing of the chargesheet is not enough, but as observed and held hereinabove, on the basis of the chargesheet, a strong case is to be made out that the accused has committed non-bailable crime and he deserves to be in custody. [Para 13] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - To hold that default bail cannot be cancelled on merits will be giving premium to lethargic investigation-In a given case, even if the accused has committed a very serious offence, may be under the NDPS or even committed murder(s), still however, he manages through a convenient investigating officer and he manages not to file the chargesheet within the prescribed time limit mentioned under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and got released on default bail, it may lead to giving a premium to illegality and/or dishonesty- Such an interpretation frustrates the course of justice. [Para 12] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202, 204 - While summoning an accused who resides outside the jurisdiction of court, it is obligatory upon the Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation be made by a police officer or such other officer for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (Para 22) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - Summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. When the violation of law alleged is clearly debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning without appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of prosecution and summoning of the accused to stand trial, apart from monetary loss, sacrifice of time, and effort to prepare a defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in the society. It results in anxiety of uncertain times. (Para 21) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 277 - The evidence of the witness has to be recorded in the language of the court or in the language of the witness as may be practicable and then get it translated in the language of the court for forming part of the record. However, recording of evidence of the witness in the translated form in English language only, though the witness gives evidence in the language of the court, or in his/her own vernacular language, is not permissible - The text and tenor of the evidence and the demeanor of a witness in the court could be appreciated in the best manner only when the evidence is recorded in the language of the witness - When a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his/her evidence, it is the original deposition of the witness which has to be taken into account and not the translated memorandum in English prepared by the Presiding Judge - All courts while recording the evidence of the witnesses, shall duly comply with the provisions of Section 277 of Cr.PC. (Para 25) Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited - Unless the High Court found that the appreciation of the evidence is perverse, it could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. (Para 21) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 307,323 and 341 IPC - High Court suspended the sentence, but imposed strict conditions of deposit of fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each - Waiving these conditions, the Supreme Court observed: Excessive conditions imposed on the appellant, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail - Can the Appellant, for not being able to comply with the excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 433 (2) - Grant of Remission - Presiding Judge should give adequate reasons while giving opinion under Section 432 (2) Cr.P.C. Jaswant Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 33

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - 439 - The process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail - The question as to whether pre-arrest bail, or for that matter regular bail, in a given case is to be granted or not is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations. The concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment. (Para 10) Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437-439, 389 - Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of sentence - Conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail. (Para 9-16) Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Ordinarily, there is no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment. (Para 11) Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Appeal against High Court order that quashed criminal proceedings observing that that the complaint lodged against the husband demand of dowry is inherently improbable and that it falls in the category of a bogus prosecution - Allowed - Merely because the wife was suffering from the disease AIDS and/or divorce petition was pending, it cannot be said that the allegations of demand of dowry were highly/inherently improbable - Once the charge sheet was filed after the investigation having been found prima facie case, it cannot be said that the prosecution was bogus. X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law. State represented by the Inspector of Police v. Maridass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 - Dismissal for default / non prosecution of bail application - Practice adopted by the High Court in passing orders for dismissal of bail application in default disapproved. Rahul Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 64

Companies Act, 2013; Section 59 - Rectificatory jurisdiction of NCLT - Summary in nature and not intended to be exercised where there are contested facts and disputed questions - Transactions falling within the jurisdiction of Regulatory bodies created under a statute must necessarily be subjected to their exante scrutiny, enquiry and adjudication - NCLT under Section 59 cannot excercise a parallel jurisdiction with SEBI for addressing violations of SEBI Regulations. (Para 1, 18) IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Constitution of India, 1950 - Constitutional Tort - A mere statement made by a minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen of Part III of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable as a constitutional tort. But, if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person or citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort. [Justice Nagarathna dissents] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950 - the Constitution does not prohibit lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court - in fact, the Supreme Court has given imprimatur to the principle that in suitable cases Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court can be considered for appointment to the High Court. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950 - Whether Minister’s statement can be vicariously attributed to government - A statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protection of the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility- Justice Nagarathna dissents to hold that statements in official capacity reflecting views of the govt can be vicariously attributed to the govt. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation, which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. (Para 13.2) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15 - The female heirs, subject to the statutory rule operating in that field, are required to be treated equally to the male heirs. Gender equality is recognised by the world community in general in the human rights regime - Exclusion of women from inheritance on the ground of gender was a clear violation of the constitutional prohibition against unfair discrimination. (Para 15) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 21 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) - The exclusion of Old Indian settlers, who have permanently settled in Sikkim prior to merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975 from the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) is hereby held to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hereby struck down. (Para 13- 17) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 21 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) Proviso - Proviso to Section 10(26AAA) inasmuch as it excludes from the provision of exemption a Sikkimese woman merely because she marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008 is totally discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India - A woman is not a chattel and has an identity of her own, and the mere factum of being married ought not to take away that identity. (Para 15-17.1) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 162, 44 and Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule - Writ Petition Challenging constitution of the Committee on the Uniform Civil Code set up by the State of Uttarakhand - Dismissed - Article 162 of the Constitution indicates that the executive power of a State extends to matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws -In view of the provisions of Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, the constitution of a Committee per se cannot be challenged as ultra vires. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 22

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a) - The grounds lined up in Article 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive. Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing claim against each other, additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) - Constitution Bench judgment- Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna unanimous. [Para 155, Majority judgment] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 – The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a person under Article 21 even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217 - Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court - Method of recommendation envisages that Collegium of the High Court consisting Chief Justice and two senior most judges recommends names; Government provides inputs; IB report is obtained; Supreme Court Collegium of three senior most judges takes a call. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - the Supreme Court refused to accept the interpretation that a person who may have been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice in the Supreme Court is ineligible to be appointed as High Court judges - because at the end of the day every lawyer is enrolled with the Bar Council of a particular State. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 222 - Supreme Court critices the Centre for delay in notifying transfer of High Court judges as per collegium recommendations- Delay in the same not only affects the administration of justice but creates an impression as if there are third party sources interfering on behalf of these Judges with the Government. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 222 - Transferred judges do not carry label of 'bar judge' or 'service judge' - If a Judge is transferred from a Court, it is not as if a replacement can be provided from the Bar or the Service Judges of that Court as the total strength of the Court is specified. When the Judge is transferred to another Court, he is a transferred Judge neither categorized from the Bar nor from the Service. In the Court where he is transferred, he occupies a physical position in the strength of that Court and unless correspondingly Judges are transferred from that Court, there will be lesser person appointed in that Court from the Bar/Services as the total strength of the Court to which transfer is made cannot be exceeded. The transferred Judge does not carry the label of a Bar or a Service Judge and it is up to the Chief Justice where to he is transferred to reduce the inflow in the Court of transfer, i.e., from the Bar or Service. Similarly, if from the Court where to Judges are transferred, in turn Judges from either category are transferred to other Courts they in turn will carry the label of a transferred Judge and not from the Bar or the Service. This aspect has been clarified as there 5 appears to be some doubts expressed about how the system of transfer will operate. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - It was premature for the High Court to opine anything on whether there was any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be considered in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under section 130 of the CGST Act was issued. Therefore, High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice and quashing and setting aside the same. State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - In view of alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal before the DRAT, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226/227 allowing the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 6) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Assuming holding notes is a right under the Constitution, the rights vested in the notes was not taken away - only restrictions were with respect to exchange of old notes with the new notes. [Para 277 - 278] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - To continue with the temporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be 9 infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Even to continue with the temporary acquisition for a longer period can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of the landowners to deal with and/or use the land. (Para 7) Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 19 & 21 - Horizontal Application - A fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the state or its instrumentalities - Justice BV Nagarathna dissents to say only habeas corpus remedy can be horizontally applied against private persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226, 227 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate - Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review - Even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. (Para 6-7) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule - The power on the Parliament as also the State Legislatures to make laws relating to mechanically propelled vehicles of all kinds and also to lay down the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied -The central enactment i.e. the law made by the Parliament has not laid down any principles for levy of taxes. The State Legislatures has the power to levy taxes not only under Entries 56 and 57 of List II but also to lay down the principles under Entry 35 of List III. (Para 46) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 27

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - deals with currency, coinage and legal tender; foreign exchange which is a field of legislation - Central Government has the power to initiate the process of demonetisation on the strength of Entry 36 - apart from financial health of the country Central Government is also concerned about the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country - if it thinks fit to initiate a proposal for demonetisation to eradicate black money, fake currency, terror funding etc, it should be able to do so. [Para 15.7, 15.8 and 15.9] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - power of Central Government to demonetise banknotes - Central Government has the power to demonetise ‘all’ series of bank notes of ‘all’ denominations, even without the recommendation of Central Board; but not in exercise of Section 26(2) - such an extensive power is to be exercised only through a legislative process [legislation/Ordinance (if urgent)] and not by way of an executive act - the Parliament should be involved in the process of implementation of such a scheme of demonetisation. [Para 15.13, 15.4 and 15.22] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Contract Act, 1872 - Principle of Estoppel - Signing the agreement and issuing an undertaking would estop Respondent No.1 from challenging the levy of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges- Court refuses to challenge the levy of 'irrigation restoration charges' by the Water Department from a company for supplying water for industrial purposes as per agreement. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department v. Rattan India Power Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 32

Criminal Trial - Motive - If motive is proved, that would supply another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case, though such an absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. (Para 15, 17.1) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation and should be interpreted in such a manner so that social security can be given to the employees. (Para 6, 6.1) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 1 (6) - Prior to insertion of Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act, only those establishments/factories engaging more than 20 employees were governed by the ESI Act. However, thereafter, Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act has been inserted on 20.10.1989, and after 20.10.1989 there is a radical change and under the amended provision a factory or establishment to which ESI Act applies would be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act. Therefore, on and after 20.10.1989, irrespective of number of persons employed a factory or an establishment shall be governed by the ESI Act. (Para 7) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 1 (6) - Sub-section (6) of Section 1 shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 and the ESI Act shall be applicable irrespective of the number of persons employed or notwithstanding that the number of persons employed at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act - Only in case of demand notice for the period prior to inserting Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the Act, it can be said that the same provision has been applied retrospectively. (Para 7) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948; Sections 53, 61 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; Section 163A, 167 - Can an employee insured under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act - Whether the insurance amount paid under the ESI Act is a “similar benefit” as the compensation which is claimed in a case where there is a Motor Vehicle accident and claim subsists so as to bar the same - Referred to larger bench. Rajkumar Agrawal v. Vehicle Tata Venture, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 62

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, 76 - Copy of the chargesheet along with the necessary documents cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act.-As per Section 75 of the Evidence Act all other documents other than the documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act are all private documents. Therefore, the chargesheet / documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced. (Para 5) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 101-102 - Declaration of Title - Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the accused in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred. (Para 16.4.1) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 134 - Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In other words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity - Even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction - Discrepancies do creep in, when a witness deposes in a natural manner after lapse of some time, and if such discrepancies are comparatively of a minor nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution story, then the same may not be given undue importance - Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) Wholly reliable; (ii) Wholly unreliable; (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence. (Para 28) Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - The law expects the IO to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27. (Para 25-26) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - There is no statement of accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - The prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused - Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires that the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the said fact. The information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery. (Para 20 -26) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 - (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence and (2) he must also be in police custody - The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence. (Para 31-33) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Sections 8 and 12 - On adoption by a widow, the adopted son or daughter is deemed to be a member of the family of the deceased husband of the widow - Referred to Sawan Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761 and Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343 - The provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956 determine the rights of a son adopted by a Hindu widow only vis-à-vis his adoptive family. (Para 9-10) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Income Tax Act 1961 - Chapter XIVB is a complete code in itself providing for self-contained machinery for assessment of undisclosed income for the block period of 10 years or 6 years as the case may be- for assessment of undisclosed income for the block period, the normal assessment proceedings under Section 140 of the Income Tax Act would not be applicable. (Para 10.6) K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Income Tax Act 1961 - Revenue justified in levying interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act for late filing of the return for the block period even in absence of any notice under Section 158BC of the Act and for the period prior to 01.06.1999. (Paras 10.3, 10.7) K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) - Sikkim Subject Rules, 1961 - Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 - All Indians/old Indian settlers, who have permanently settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975, irrespective of whether his/her name is recorded in the register maintained under the Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 read with Sikkim Subject Rules, 1961 or not, are entitled to the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act. (Para 17) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 148 and 148A - Writ petition can be entertained to examine if conditions for issuance of notice under Section 148 have been satisfied. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2021 - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - A company could not avail benefit of the Sabka Vishwas scheme as it was under moratorium under IBC - The Courts are meant to do justice and cannot compel a person to do something which was impossible for him to do - Directed that the payment of amount already deposited by the company be appropriated towards settlement dues under “Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019 and the company be issued discharge certificate. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 and Article 137 - The limitation period for initiating CIRP under Section 9, IBC is to be reckoned from the date of default, as opposed to the date of commencement of IBC and the period prescribed therefor, is three years as provided by Article 137 - The same would commence from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 Limitation Act - it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim for condonation of the delay when once the proceeding concerned is found filed beyond the period of limitation. (Para 23-24) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Pre-Existing Dispute - What is to be looked into is the existence or otherwise of a dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceedings prior to the receipt of demand notice or invoice, as the case may be. (Para 34-38) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Interest Tax Act, 1974 - Non-banking finance and leasing companies are not liable to pay tax on the interest component included in the hire-purchase instalment paid under the hire purchase agreement. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - If the land is continued to be under temporary acquisition for number of years, meaning and purpose of temporary acquisition would lose its significance. Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years. It cannot be disputed that once the land is under temporary acquisition and the same is being used by the ONGC for oil exploration, it may not be possible for the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or to deal with the same in any manner. (Para 7) Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 - 'Sufficient cause’ is the only criterion for condoning delay. ‘Sufficient Cause’ is the cause for which a party could not be blamed. (Para 25) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972 (Himachal Pradesh); Section 3A (3) - Levy of Additional Special Road Tax - Constitutional Validity upheld - The tax imposed under Section 3A(3) is regulatory in character and is not a penalty - No repugnancy or conflict of the State enactment with the central enactment - Provision is regulatory in nature and therefore within the competence of the Legislature of State of Himachal Pradesh - Object of the additional special road tax to make it work as a deterrent from the transport operators in plying vehicles without permit and in contravention of the terms of the permit. (Para 42-48)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 139 - The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities - once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the N.I. Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability - The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities - To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence - Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. Referred to Baslingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 (Para 12-20) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Rajasthan); Section 18 - Even in case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso to Section 18 - In Section 18, there is no distinction between the termination, removal, or reduction in rank after the disciplinary proceedings/enquiry or even without disciplinary proceedings/enquiry. (Para 5-6) Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Penal Code, 1860; Section 299, 300 - Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Locus classicus on the issue viz. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [1958] S.C.R. 1495. (Para 16-17) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - The requirement of Section 300 thirdly is fulfilled if the prosecution proves that the accused inflicted an injury which would been sufficient to have resulted in death of the victim. The determinative fact would be the intention to cause such injury and what was the degree of probability (gravest, medium, or the lowest degree) of death which determines whether the crime is culpable homicide or murder - When the nature of injury being so dangerous as to result in death (Section 300 fourthly), accused’s disregard to the consequences of the injury, and an element of callousness to the result, denotes or signifies the intention. (Para 18-19) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - The standard of reasonableness for applying the “grave and sudden” provocation - mere long-standing preexisting dispute does not attract the exception. (Para 23-24) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - There can be no stereotypical assumption or formula that where death occurs after a lapse of some time, the injuries (which might have caused the death), the offence is one of culpable homicide. Every case has its unique fact situation. However, what is important is the nature of injury, and whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death. The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor. (Para 25-26) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302 - Concurrent conviction of murder accused set aside - There is a fair degree of uncertainty in the prosecution story and the courts below appear to have somewhat been influenced by the oral testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, without taking into consideration the effect of the other attending circumstances, thereby warranting interference. Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302, 211 - Accused allegedly took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to Haiderpur Canal, and strangulated them. Thereafter, he threw the dead bodies into the canal; and attempted to project as if it were a case of accidental drowning - Concurrent conviction under Sections 302, 211 IPC upheld by the Apex Court. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376 - Accused concurrently convicted under Section 376 IPC for rape - Allowing his appeal and acquitting him, the Supreme Court observed: The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male child through the loin of the accused, she did not have any complaint against the accused of he having given false promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children also, still she continued to live with the accused at another premises without any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes must have taken place between them, that she filed the present complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had stated that she had filed the complaint as he refused to fulfill her demand to pay her huge amount. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC. Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376 - It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC - Difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused - In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise. (Para 20) Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405, 406 - A mere dispute on monetary demand does not attract the offence of criminal breach of trust - Mere wrong demand or claim would not meet the conditions specified by Section 405 of the IPC in the absence of evidence to establish entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal, which action should be in violation of any direction of law, or legal contract touching the discharge of trust. (Para 15) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Penal Code, 1860; Section 415, 420 - The sine qua non of Section 415 of the IPC is “fraudulence”, “dishonesty”, or “intentional inducement”, and the absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating - For the offence of cheating, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should also have dishonestly adduced the person deceived to deliver any property to a person; or to make, alter, or destroy, wholly or in part, a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. (Para 17) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Penal Code, 1860; Section 464, 470 471 - The condition precedent of an offence under Section 471 of the IPC is forgery by making a false document or false electronic record or part thereof - A person is said to have made a ‘false document’: (i) if he has made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; (ii) if he has altered or tampered a document; or (iii) if he has obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. Unless, the document is false and forged in terms of Sections 464 and 470 of the IPC respectively, the requirement of Section 471 of the IPC would not be met. (Para 18) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105 - The burden of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies on the accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act; and where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence, as duly exemplified by illustration (a) to the said Section 105 of the Evidence Act - The mandate of law is that the Court shall presume absence of the circumstances so as to take the case within any of the General Exceptions in IPC. (Para 21) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Penal Code, 1869; Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction in a murder case - Allowed - Conviction set aside - The time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of the accused on 09-10-1999 and the probable time of his death, based on the post mortem report, which was conducted two days later, but was silent about the probable time of death, though it stated that death occurred approximately two days before the post mortem, is not narrow. Given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants is not justified. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Registration Act, 1908 - the inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not - production of the original power of attorney is not an indispensable requirement to establish the validity of execution of a sale deed. [Nagarathna; J., Para 23] Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Registration Act, 1908; Section 33(1)(c) - If the principal at the time of execution of the PoA does not reside in India, a PoA executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government shall be valid - when title is claimed on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed by the original owner on the strength of which execution of sale deed is takes place, the conditions provided under Section 33(1)(c) of the Registration Act are required to be strictly complied with. [Shah; J., Para 6, 7] Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Registration Act, 1908; Section 60 - Statutory Presumption - Only in a case where the execution of the Power of Attorney is as per Section 32 read with Section 33(1)(c) of the Registration Act, there shall be statutory presumption. [Shah; J., Para 7] Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 26(2) - The decision taken by the Central Government to demonetise is to be based on the recommendation of the Central Board of RBI - RBI is the sole repository of power for the management of currency; it plays a pivotal role in management and issuance of currency notes; dealing with the management and regulation of currency; and in evolving the monetary policy - provision of recommendation by Central Board of RBI acts as a safeguard. [Para 202 - 206] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Central Government may take recourse to the power to demonetise taking into consideration several factors - these factors must have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. [Para 151] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - does not provide for excessive delegation as there is a safeguard that the power can be used only upon recommendation of RBI - though legislature cannot give up its power in favour of another, in view of the multifarious activities of a welfare State, it cannot work out all the details, thus making it necessarily to delegate the same to the executive - Parliament and State Legislatures may not have specialised knowledge - technical and situational intricacies are better left to expert executive bodies and specialist public servants - mere possibility or eventuality of abuse of delegated powers in the absence of any evidence supporting such claim cannot be a ground to strike down a provision - it can be struck down only if it satisfies the ‘policy and guideline’ test. [Para 186, 188, 190, 193] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Essential Ingredients - i) on recommendation of the Central Board of RBI - ii) the Central Government by notification in the Gazette of India; iii) may declare any series of bank notes of any denomination to cease to be legal tender; iv) with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification; v) to such extent as may be specified in the notification. [Para 15.6] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - if demonetisation of any bank note takes place under the provision of the Act, it is only by issuance of a notification in the Gazette of India and not by any other method - only the Central Board of RBI is the initiator of the process of demonetisation - the provision has a restricted operation, either the Central Government accepts the recommendation of the Central Board and issue a gazette notification, or refuse to accept the recommendation [Para 15.17, 15.18 and 15.25] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - on earlier two occasions, when RBI was not in favour of demonetisation, the Government resorted to promulgation of ordinances to demonetise currency notes - merely because on two earlier occasions the Central Government had enacted law to demonetise, does not mean the the word “any'' can be given a restrictive meaning - “any” would mean “all”. [Para 152 - 158] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - on recommendation of Central Board of RBI, Central Government may declare “any” series of bank notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender with effect from a specific date - the word “any” must be interpreted as “all”, otherwise it would lead to an anomaly - e.g. if there are 20 series of a particular denomination, the Centre cannot demonetise 19 series and leave behind one series to continue as legal tender - an interpretation which nullifies the purpose for which power is bestowed would be contrary to the principle of purposive interpretation. [Para 144 - 150] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Scheme of the Act envisages that the issuance of bank notes, various denomination of bank notes, design and form of bank notes are to be specified by the Central Government ‘only’ on recommendation of the Central Board. [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - the decision-making process is not flawed in law - the duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality - it ought to determine whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would reach or abused its powers - it is not concerned with the manner in which the decision was taken. [Para 215, 226] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - two requirements of the provision a) recommendation by the Central Board and b) decision of the Central Government - dictionary meaning of “recommend” is “to advise as to a course of action” or “to praise or command” - the word recommendation ought to be construed in the context in which it is used - in the present context “recommendation” would mean a consultative process between the Central Board and the Central Government - it is to be considered by the Court whether each of the party had disclosed all relevant facts and factors to each other for due consideration. [Para 239 - 245] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - when Central Board recommends demonetisation it is only a particular series of bank notes of a particular denomination as recommend under Section 26(2) - the word ‘any’ cannot be read as ‘all’ - if ‘any’ is to be read as ‘all’, it would provided unguided discretion to the Central Board. [Para 15.13] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Right to Information Act, 2005 - Copies of the chargesheet and the relevant documents along with the charge-sheet do not fall within Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. (Para 6) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings - Initiation of the criminal proceedings therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court - Complaint and summoning order quashed. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2), 13(4), 18 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993; Section 2(g) - Whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the ‘debt due’ within the meaning of proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets, the amount mentioned in the sale certificate will have to be considered while determining the amount of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In a case where both are under challenge, namely, steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets and also the auction sale of the secured assets, in that case, the “debt due” shall mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person, whichever is higher -The borrower can take the benefit of the amount received by the creditor in an auction sale only if he unequivocally accepts the sale. In a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest. (Para 13-16) Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 26E - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Sections 15 - 23 - 'Priority’ conferred / provided under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14, 17 - Neither District Magistrate nor Metropolitan Magistrate would have any jurisdiction to adjudicate and/or decide the dispute even between the secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4) / order passed under Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal / application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 10) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 31(i) - When it was the case on behalf of the borrowers that in view of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the properties were agricultural lands, the same were being exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on. (Para 7-8) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell -Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna delivers a split verdict on whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific relief. C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16 - Unless the plaintiff was called upon to produce the passbook either by the defendant or, the Court orders him to do so, no adverse inference can be drawn. Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 17

Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 - the purpose of the Act was to extinguish the liabilities of the SBNs which have ceased to be legal tender with effect from 09.11.2016 - Section 4 is a complete code in itself - Section 4(1) empowers the Central Government to provide grace period - under Section 4(2), RBI is required to satisfy whether a person seeking to take benefit of grace period is entitled after satisfying that the reasons for the delay are genuine - Section 4(2) cannot be read independently - if the Central Government finds that there exists any class of persons to whom benefit under Section 4 is to be extended it has the discretion to do so - RBI does not have independent power under Section 4(2) to accept the demonetised notes beyond the period specified in the notification. [Para 299, 302 - 303] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Trade Tax Act (UP); Section 4A - In a case of “diversification”, the effect has to be that the quality and quantity of the product should have been improved and/or increased but if the ultimate use is the same, the product manufactured on use of modern and/or advanced technology cannot be said to be manufacturing the different goods for claiming the exemption from payment of trade tax - “Diversification” can be considered only in a case where “goods of different nature” are produced, and only then the exemption shall be available. The goods manufactured on “diversification” must be a “different”, “distinct” and a “separate” good in nature. (Para 8-9) AMD Industries Ltd; v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Principle of Estoppel - Though the release deed executed by the son was with respect to only a spes successonis right, his conduct of relinquishment will bind his sons through estoppel-despite the fact that what was purported to be released by Shri Chandran, was a mere spec successonis or expectation his conduct in transferring/releasing his rights for valuable consideration, would give rise to an estoppel. The effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel. (Para 23) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 6 (a) - spes successonis - A living man has no heir- Release deed executed by son relinquishing his share in the self-acquired property of father has no effect- A person who may become the heir and entitled to succeed under the law upon the death of his relative would not have any right until succession to the estate is opened up. Unlike a co-parcener who acquires right to joint family property by his mere birth, in regard to the separate property of the Hindu, no such right exists. (Para 10) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 6 (a) -Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successonis is ineffective to convey any right. By the mere execution of Release Deed, in other words, in the facts of this case, no transfer took place-This is for the simple reason that the transferor, namely, the father of the appellants did not have any right at all which he could transfer or relinquish. (Para 14) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21
2. AMD Industries Ltd; v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 18
3. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 22
4. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5
5. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28
6. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14
7. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57
8. Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 17
9. Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47
10. Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50
11. C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 31
12. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department v. Rattan India Power Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 32
13. Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
14. Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 4 Jan 2023 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30
15. Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65
16. ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 53
17. Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44
18. Fisherman Care v. Govt of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 58
19. Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48
20. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36
21. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45
22. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43
23. IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8
24. Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6
25. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41
26. Jaswant Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 33
27. K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 13
28. K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38
29. K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54
30. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4
31. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 12
32. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51
33. Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29
34. Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55
35. Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60
36. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7
37. Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66
38. Oswal Plastic Industries v. Manager, Legal Dept., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 34
39. Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59
40. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2
41. Rahul Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 64
42. Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46
43. Rajkumar Agrawal v. Vehicle Tata Venture, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 62
44. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16
45. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 23
46. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24
47. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10
48. Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9
49. Sanjiv Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 63
50. Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52
51. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15
52. Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40
53. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11
54. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 19
55. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42
56. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 27
57. State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56
58. State represented by the Inspector of Police v. Maridass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 25
59. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
60. Subhash Chauhan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 61
61. TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39
62. Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49
63. Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35
64. Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67
65. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20
66. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1
67. X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26