SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Access to Justice

Fundamental right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court - The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution. (Para 112) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Administrative Law

Notification Issued by Central Govt not invalid merely because it's not issued in the President's name. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

The Supreme Court directs the Ministry of Law & Justice to conduct judicial impact assessment of all Tribunals at the Earliest. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Supreme Court praises Orissa High Court for creatively using technology; Says other HCs should replicate it. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

'Union Govt has power to abolish State Administrative Tribunal': Supreme Court affirms abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Adverse Remarks

Adverse Remarks During Hearings – Live Broadcast and Virtual Hearings – Essential for courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against parties involved – Remarks may be passed only with proper justification, in the right forum, and if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice – Stricter standard of responsibility on judges while conducting such court proceedings due to advent of live broadcast and virtual hearings – Held, remarks liable to be expunged for having caused injury to the appellant’s reputation on account of being widely circulated by the media – Appeal allowed. Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh P.S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Armed Forces

High Courts can entertain challenges to orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal: Supreme Court overruled its Judgment. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Auction

Possession of license to do business in shop does not entitle party to allotment of auction platform as matter of right. Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Bail

Day of remand should be included for considering default bail claim: Supreme Court answers reference. Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249

'Large number of remand orders passed in violation of law are from Uttar Pradesh': Supreme Court seeks Allahabad HC's intervention. Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Supreme Court warns magistrates who don't follow judgments on bail; says they might be taken off from judicial work & sent for training. Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Supreme Court displeased that Magistrates are passing custody orders in violation of the directions in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 - It is the duty of the High Courts that it ensures that the subordinate judiciary under their supervision follows the law of the land. If such orders are being passed by some Magistrates it may even require some judicial work to be withdrawn and the magistrate to be sent to judicial academies for upgradation of their skills. (Para ii) Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

All prosecuting agencies / State Governments / UTs should issue directions to the Public Prosecutors so that neither in pleadings nor in arguments, is a stand taken contrary to the legal position enunciated by this Court. The circulation in this behalf should be made through the Director of Prosecution and training programmes be organized to keep on updating the Prosecutors in this behalf. (Para IV) Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Ensure basic essentials such as FIR number, police station are recorded in bail orders: Supreme Court to all High Courts. Ravish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 206

'Bail can be cancelled if serious offences are subsequently added to FIR': Supreme Court sets aside bail in 'casting couch' case. Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Banking Law

Borrowers have right to be heard before their accounts are classified as fraud - the decision to classify the account as fraudulent must be made by a reasoned order - Since the RBI's Master Directions do not expressly provide for an opportunity of hearing to the borrower, audi alteram partem must be read into the provisions to save them from the vice of arbitrariness. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Supreme Court dismisses Centre's curative plea seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide Corporation after reopening settlement entered in 1989 which was approved by the Supreme Court-The Union has filed the present curative petitions seeking to reopen the settlement after opposing attempts by private parties to do so. The responsibility was placed on the Union of India, being a welfare State to make good the deficiency and to take out the relevant insurance policies. Surprisingly, we are informed that no such insurance policy was taken out. This is gross negligence on part of the Union of India and is a breach of the directions made in the review judgment. The Union cannot be negligent on this aspect and then seek a prayer from this Court to fix such liability on UCC. (Para 46) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - While we sympathize with the victims of the awful tragedy, we are unable to disregard settled principles of law, particularly at the curative stage. Mere sympathy for the sufferers does not enable us to devise a panacea; more so while looking into the nature of dispute, and the multifarious occasions on which this Court has applied its mind to the settlement. (Para 40) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Union of India’s claim for a ‘top up’ has no foundations in any known legal principle. Either a settlement is valid or it is to be set aside in cases where it is vitiated by fraud. No such fraud has been pleaded by the Union, and their only contention relates to a number of victims, injuries, and costs that were not contemplated at the time the settlement was effected - We are equally dissatisfied with the Union being unable to furnish any rationale for raking up this issue more than two decades after the incident. (Para 47, 48) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - A sum of Rs.50 crore lying with the RBI shall be utilised by the Union of India to satisfy pending claims, if any, in accordance with the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the Scheme framed thereunder. (Para 49) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Providing closure to a lis is also a very important aspect. This is more so in the context of the scenario faced by the Indian judiciary, where delay is almost inevitable. This concern would be further amplified in respect of a tort claim such as the present one - if evidence were to be led for each claimant, this would open a pandora’s box in UCC’s favour and would only be to the detriment of the beneficiaries. (Para 50) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Canon Law

Kerala High Court's observation that church assets are governed by public trust law and Bishops have no power to alienate them are prima facie in nature, no finality can be attached to them. (Para 21, 22) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Central Excise

Central Excise Act - No separate notice necessary for recovery of erroneous refund granted. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Central Excise Act - To be "related person", buyer & seller must have direct or indirect interest in each other’s business. Bilag Industries P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Daman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Only retail sale can claim assessment benefits under Section 4A of Central Excise Act. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Civil Law

Should a Judgment be reviewed because it followed a precedent which was later overruled ? Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Cause of action for redemption suit is successive, second suit by mortgagor not barred by default dismissal of first suit. Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Pleadings - A entitled to take alternative pleas in support of its case - plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas while seeking alternative reliefs. (Para 41, 42) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Company Law

Supreme Court allows disbursal of Rs 5000 Crores from “SEBI-Sahara Fund” to depositors; Former SC Judge to monitor disbursement. Pinak Pani Mohanty vs Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of Schedule III of Sebi Stock Broker Regulations. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Adani-Hindenburg Issue: Supreme Court directs SEBI to conclude investigation in 2 months, constitutes expert committee to review regulatory framework. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Adani-Hindenburg : Know the members of the expert committee constituted by the Supreme Court to review regulatory mechanism. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Adani-Hindenburg | Formation of expert committee does not divest SEBI of its responsibilities in continuing investigation. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Community Certificate

Affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case - Affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Court is appalled at the treatment given to the Appellant by the Respondents herein. The Appellant, before applying to the post reserved for ST candidates supplied all documents required in support of his claim as a ST candidate, and got the documents verified and approved. After being given employment however, the re-evaluation of the authenticity of the documents of the Appellant have been kept pending for 19 years, dangling like a sword on the Appellants head. (Para 13) Community Certificate - The exercise of verification of community certificate must be completed expeditiously. (Para 16) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207

A community certificate in cases of scheduled tribe communities, unlike any other piece of paper, is an acknowledgment of a person belonging to a community which has faced years of oppression. The Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to people from Scheduled Tribe communities on grounds of historical injustice, and for the translation of such rights from paper to real life, the community certificate in most cases becomes an essential document. This certificate, whilst being an acknowledgment of history, is also a document that tries to rectify such historical injustice by becoming a tool that fabricates constitutional rights into reality. In such a scenario where the validity of a community certificate is put to question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people’s rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte. (Para 22) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207

Constitution

Article 30 - Minority educational institution cannot claim exemption from admission & fee regulatory committee. Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202

'Dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to bottom': Supreme Court reprimands Punjab CM, Governor. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Two important aspects of Parliamentary democracy - There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy. First, the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation. Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship. (Para 25) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

On maintaining civility in discourses between Constitutional functionaries - Political differences in a democratic polity have to be worked upon and sorted out with a sense of sobriety and maturity. The dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be borne in mind, the realization of constitutional values may be placed in jeopardy-We can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship will ensure that such instances do not occur in the future as much as we reiterate our expectation that constitutional functionaries must be cognizant of the public trust in the offices which they occupy. The public trust which is entrusted to them is intended to sub-serve the cause of our citizens and to ensure that the affairs of the nation are conducted with a sense of equanimity so as to accomplish the objects of the Preamble to the Constitution. (Para 26) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Article 226(2) - Supreme Court explains tests to determine if cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of the High Court. State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184

Petition under article 32 to challenge a binding judgment not maintainable. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179

'You want to keep the country on boil? don't belittle hinduism's greatness': Supreme Court dismisses Ashwini Upadhyay's plea to rename cities. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

'A Country can't remain prisoner of past': Supreme Court dismisses plea to rename cities named after muslim rulers; stresses on India's secular character. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Secularism - India, that is ‘Bharat’ in terms of the preamble, is a secular country- The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State’s action. (Para 8, 9) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Plea to rename places named after Muslim rulers - Supreme Court dismisses - The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past- The history of any nation cannot haunt the future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past. (Para 9, 11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Fraternity - The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic. We must constantly remind ourselves that courts of law, as indeed every part of the ‘State’, must be guided by the sublime realisation, that Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution. (Para 11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Consumer

Consumer Commissions can't decide complaints involving highly disputed facts, criminal or tortious acts. Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Amend Consumer Protection Rules on appointment process of commission members within 3 months : Supreme Court to Centre, States. In Re: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Supreme Court Paves way for lawyers with 10 yrs experience to be considered for consumer commission appointments; upholds striking down of centre's rules. Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Supreme Court upholds the Bombay High Court judgment which struck down provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules which excluded persons with 10 years professional experience from appointment to State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums - for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission, the appointment shall be made on the basis of performance in written test consisting of two papers. Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Contempt

Advocate making baseless allegation that another lawyer took money in judge's name; Supreme Court affirms contempt of court proceedings. Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Courts should not summon the appearance of officials at the “Drop of the Hat”. State of U.P. v. Prahalad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Corruption

Supreme Court acquits man accused of taking rs 300 bribe twenty years ago. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232

PC Act | Constitution Bench Judgment allowing circumstantial evidence does not dilute requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Desirable that FIRs in corruption cases aren't quashed at the investigation stage: Supreme Court To High Courts. State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Corruption is the main reason for not achieving equal distribution of wealth; botched investigations of scams a bigger scam. State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Criminal Law

'Possible that police set up false case after killing deceased in the process of arrest': Supreme Court acquits 4 in 1989 murder case. Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Constitutional Courts can impose life sentence for fixed term without remission even in cases where the death penalty wasn't imposed. Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Accused can't claim right of hearing before registration of FIR. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Smuggling & Foreign Exchange Manipulations - Necessary to deprive persons engaged in such acts of their ill gotten gains. Platinum Theatre v. Competent Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Supreme Court dismisses Cardinal George Alencherry's plea to quash criminal cases over land scam. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Section 438 Cr.P.C. | Can HCs refuse to entertain anticipatory bail pleas for not exhausting Sessions Court remedy? Supreme Court to Consider. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Section 319 Cr.P.C. power is to be exercised only if strong & cogent evidence occurs against a person. Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Sex with minor wife: Supreme Court acquits husband of rape relying on exception 2 to Sec 375 IPC. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Written statement of the accused has to be considered in the light of prosecution evidence. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Section 313 Cr.P.C.: Supreme Court Summarises 10 well-settled principles. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Mere intimidation to silence kidnapped child victim not sufficient to prove threat to life & limb. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Mere breach of contract can't be the basis for a criminal case for cheating. Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Transfer of Investigation to CBI - The power to transfer the investigation is an extraordinary power. It is to be used very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where the Court on appreciating the facts and circumstance arrives at the conclusion that there is no other option of securing a fair trial without the intervention and investigation by the CBI or such other specialized investigating agency which has the expertise. Royden Harold Buthello v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 154

Section 256 Cr.P.C. - Not proper to acquit the accused merely for the non-appearance of the complainant who was already examined. BLS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Rajwant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Criminal Trial

The job of the prosecution is not to accept the complainant’s version as Gospel Truth and proceed in that direction but the investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must ascertain the truth. The evidence collected during investigation should then be analysed by the Investigating Officer and accordingly a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC should be submitted. Further, the duty of the Trial Court is to carefully scrutinise the evidence, try to find out the truth on the basis of evidence led. Wherever necessary the Trial Court may itself make further inquiry on its own with regard to facts and circumstances which may create doubt in the minds of the Court during trial. If the investigation is unfair and tainted then it is the duty of the Trial Court to get the clarifications on all the aspects which may surface or may be reflected by the evidence so that it may arrive at a just and fair conclusion. If the Trial Court fails to exercise this power and discretion vested in it then the judgment of the Trial Court may be said to be vitiated. [Para 13] Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 265

The Courts must refrain from committing such grave errors in the future, whereby innocent people are made to suffer incarceration for over a period of nearly two decades, without proper appreciation of evidence. (Para 19) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Delay in sending FIR - Unless serious prejudice is caused, mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate would not, by itself, have a negative effect on the case of the prosecution. One of the external checks against ante-dating or antetiming an FIR is the time of its dispatch to the Magistrate or its receipt by the Magistrate. A dispatch of a copy of the FIR forthwith ensures that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR. (Para 17.6) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate - It is the settled position of law that each and every delay caused is not fatal to a case in the absence of demonstrated prejudice. In the present case, though, while there is reliance at the Bar on this principle no submission has been made to show prejudice having been caused to the accused. Statements sans adequate backing cannot sway the Court. Even the delay in the receipt of the FIR with the concerned Magistrate cannot be a reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is not a case of non-compliance of provisions equally the delay is not inordinate so as to cast any doubt. (Para 20) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Power of Court of Appeal - The Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an order of acquittal as in the order of conviction, along with the rider of presumption of innocence which continues across all stages of a case. Such Court should give due importance to the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. The High Court, being the First Appellate Court must discuss/re-appreciate the evidence on record. Failure to do so is a good ground enough to remand the matter for consideration. (Para 17.9) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Preponderance of probabilities - To entitle a person to the benefit of a doubt arising from a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. (Para 17.5) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Death Penalty

Supreme Court commutes death sentence for kidnapping and murder of a 7 year old child to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without remission of sentence-the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires that the death sentence not be imposed only by taking into account the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal’. (Para 89) Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Education

Court cannot declare equivalency of a course. Unnikrishnan C.V. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Post graduate degree from an open university without undergoing a basic degree course is not valid. P. Raman v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 169

There cannot be any school without a playground. Even the students, who study in such a school are entitled to a good environment - Supreme Court directs removal of encroachments near school premises. State of Haryana v. Satpal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 163

Encroachment of Public Land - Supreme Court sets aside HC direction to legalize unauthorized occupations near a school by taking the market value - SC terms the High Court direction unsustainable - Notes that the school has no playground. State of Haryana v. Satpal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 163

Election

'Open ballot system in Rajya Sabha elections necessitated to prevent cross-voting' : Supreme Court rejects challenge to Election Rules. Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254

The Supreme Court directs appointment of election commissioners on advise of committee comprising Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and CJI. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

‘Certain Section of media turned unashamedly partisan; Huge surge of money power in elections’: Supreme Court Observes in ECI Case. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Election Commission needs permanent secretariat, expenses should be charged on consolidated fund: Supreme Court suggests. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Should election commissioners have the same protection as CEC? the Supreme Court majority says no, Justice Ajay Rastogi says yes. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Arun Goel's appointment as election commissioner raises pertinent questions at procedure; EC should have 6 years tenure. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

'Majoritarian forces must be counterbalanced, abuse of electoral process way to grave of democracy ': top quotes from Supreme Court's ECI verdict. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

ECI Case | Right to vote is a part of fundamental rights, says Justice Rastogi; majority judgment opines it's a constitutional right. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Electricity

Diversion of gas to other generating stations is not sufficient ground to seek compensation when PPA has no such provision. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Supreme Court upholds 'Change in Law' compensation for Adani Power; Flays State DISCOMs for taking a stand contrary to Union Govt. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Environment

'NGT could not have ignored decree affirmed by Supreme Court': SC allows housing society's appeal. Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Johi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Appeal maintainable before NGT against corrigendum imposing additional conditions to environmental clearance. IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192

Environmental Clearance - Supreme Court permits IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited to continue operating its power plants in Tamil Nadu. IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192

The Supreme Court issues directions for installation of vapour recovery system in retail petroleum outlets. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Evidence

Test Identification Parade doesn't have much value when the accused is already known to witness. Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Circumstantial Evidence | When two views are possible, view favouring accused innocence to be adopted. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Evidence of Hostile Witness - a) Corroborated part of the evidence of a hostile witness regarding the commission of offence is admissible. Merely because there is deviation from the statement in the FIR, the witness’s statements cannot be termed totally unreliable; b) the evidence of a hostile witness can form the basis of conviction. c) The general principle of appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses is that when a case involves a large number of offenders, prudently, it is necessary, but not always, for the Court to seek corroboration from at least two more witnesses as a measure of caution. Be that as it may, the principle is quality over quantity of witnesses. (Para 17.1) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Effect of omissions, deficiencies - Evidence examined as a whole, must reflect/ring of truth. The court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies which do not shake the foundations of the prosecution’s case. (Para 17.2) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Reliance on Single Witness - If a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereupon cannot be said to be infirm in any manner. (Para 17.3) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Testimony of a close relative - A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even “partisan” or “interested” witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not one of general application. (Para 17.4) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Law relating to Circumstantial Evidence– Discussed. (Para 5 - 11) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Extra-Judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, independent corroboration needed. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Mere fact of commission of suicide itself not sufficient to raise presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act. Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Foreign Judgments

Reliance of Foreign Judgments - Considering the different position of laws in US and in our country more particularly faced with Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(4) of the Constitution of India under which the right to freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and is not an absolute right and the constitution permits the Parliament to frame the laws taking into consideration the public order and/or the sovereignty of India, without noticing the differences in American Laws and the Indian laws, this Court in the case of Arup Bhuyan (supra) and Raneep (supra) has erred in straightway and directly following the US Supreme Court decisions and that too without adverting to the differences and the position of laws in India. (Para 13) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Insolvency

IBC | Application under Section 12A for withdrawal of CIRP is maintainable prior to the Constitution of CoC. Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 250

IBC - Once a resolution plan is approved, no modifications are permissible. SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231

IBC - Resolution professional entitled to take control of corporate debtor's rights in assets licensed to third parties. Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Reliance Home Finance Insolvency: Supreme Court allows debenture holders to be covered under resolution plan of Authum Investments. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173

Interpretation of Statutes

When any provision of Parliamentary legislation is read down in the absence of Union of India it is likely to cause enormous harm to the interest of the State. (Para 11.2) Reading down the provision of a statute cannot be resorted to when the meaning of a provision is plain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear. (Para 11.4) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Judicial Activism

The jurisprudential enthusiasm and wisdom for doing the substantial justice has to be applied by the courts within the permissible limits. The belief of self-righteousness or smugness of the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review should not overawe the other authorities discharging their statutory functions. We may not have to remind the High Courts that judicial restraint is a virtue, and the predilections of individual judges, howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law. Unwarranted judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the litigants. (Para 29) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Judiciary

District Judges Appointment - Only 10% Posts Can Be Filled Through Limited Competitive Examination. Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 181

District Judges Appointments - Higher Judiciary - Supreme Court directs the Madhya Pradesh High Court to comply with the directions of the Apex Court in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. v. UoI and Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 170, particularly, the one asking the High Courts to reserve only 10% seats in the higher judiciary to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination - directed the High Court to see if the 10% quota was breached in any recruitment subsequent to 1.1.2022 and if so, stated, all such posts were to be adjusted in the future recruitments. Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Juvenile

Prisoner awarded death penalty for five murders found to be a juvenile at the time of offence in 1994 - Supreme Court orders release forthwith. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Death Penalty - Supreme Court set aside the death sentence imposed on a convict for the rape and murder of a minor girl after he was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offence. Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Labour Law

Court can always test the extreme penalty of dismissal from service on the test of proportionality - Poor Line Mazdoor dismissed from service reinstated by Supreme Court invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v Ajit Mondal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 209

Labour Disputes - Effective relief can be granted to a worker only if the permanent address of the workman is furnished in the pleadings - In future all the cases to be filed and in all the pending cases, the parties shall be required to furnish their permanent address(es) - Merely mentioning through Labour Union or authorised representatives, who are sometimes union leaders or legal practitioners, will not be sufficient - Service of notice of workman will have to be effected on the permanent address of the workman. Creative Garments Ltd. v. Kashiram Verma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Land Law

RFCTLARR Act - Owner cannot pray for lapse of land acquisition after refusing to accept compensation. State of Gujarat v Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Delhi Land Reforms Act not applicable once an area is urbanised under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191

MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam - Scheme will not lapse merely because it was not completed within 3 years despite substantial steps. Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183

Mines & Minerals

Collector is competent authority to cancel lease deed under Rule 51(7) OMMC Rules. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Mistake

'There was a mistake on part of this court': Supreme Court recalls order disbursing money to two persons in unitech case. Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Murder Trial

Supreme Court acquits a man setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court. Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Supreme Court acquits man convicted for allegedly killing his wife thirty-five years ago - Reverses concurrent findings of trial court and High Court - Doubt and suspicion cannot form basis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances linking the accused to the crime are not proven at all, much less beyond reasonable doubt. Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 240

Whether on the basis of testimony of a solitary witness, eight men can be allowed to suffer incarceration for life? Held, Credible testimony of a single eyewitness sufficient to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apart from accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were not present at the scene of the crime; simply because a number of witnesses had turned hostile, does not on its own give a ground to reject the evidence of PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brother of the deceased and therefore, is an interested as well a chance witness, are untenable submissions. (Para 21) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Prosecution's omission to explain injuries on accused assumes importance when evidence consists of interested witnesses. Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

'Non-Recovery of corpse relevant in considering chain of circumstances': Supreme Court reverses conviction in murder case. Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Narcotic Drugs

Plain and literal interpretation of Section 37 NDPS Act would make bail impossible: Supreme Court adopts 'Prima Facie' Test. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Bail can be granted in NDPS cases on ground of undue delay in trial despite stringent conditions in Section 37. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Natural Justice

Right to Speedy Trial - Laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable - Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit - The act of the Court shall prejudice no one and in such a fact situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court - Any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralized, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor by the act of the Court - Court recalls order allowing disbursement of money to two individuals - Asks them to return. Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Audi alteram partem - The application of audi alteram partem cannot be impliedly excluded from the Master Directions on Frauds - The principles of natural justice demand that the borrowers must be served a notice, given an opportunity to explain the conclusions of the forensic audit report, and be allowed to represent by the banks/ JLF before their account is classified as fraud under the Master Directions on Frauds. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243

The decision to establish, continue or abolish the OAT is in the nature of a policy formulated and implemented by the State Government (acting with the Union Government under the Administrative Tribunals Act). The public at large does not have a right to be heard before a policy is formulated and implemented. (Para 86) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Parole

All those undertrial prisoners and convicts who have been released on emergency parole / interim bail pursuant to the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee in compliance of the orders passed by this Court have to surrender before the concerned prison authorities within 15 days. In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Period of emergency parole granted on recommendation of HPC during COVID-19 cannot be counted towards actual sentence period. Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Partition

Hindu Succession | If law gets amended before passing final decree in partition suit, parties can seek its benefit. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Settlement deed in a partition suit must include written consent of all parties; consent decree among only some parties not maintainable. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Patriarchal Statements

Courts should avoid patriarchal statements in judgments - It does not and should not matter for a constitutional court whether the young child was a male child or a female child. The murder remains equally tragic. Courts should also not indulge in furthering the notion that only a male child furthers family lineage or is able to assist the parents in old age. Such remarks involuntarily further patriarchal value judgements that courts should avoid regardless of the context. (Para 75) Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Possession

In suit for possession, prior possession becomes relevant when both parties fail to establish title. Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Possessory Title - Principle of “jus tertii”- ‘right of a third party - no defendant in an action of trespass can plead the ‘jus tertii’ that the right of possession outstanding in some third person. (Para 28) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Possessory Title - when the facts disclose no title in either party, at the relevant time, prior possession alone decides the right to possession of land in the assumed character of owner against all the world except against the rightful owner - ‘Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis’ (he that hath possession hath right against all but him that hath the very right)”. (Para 30) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Practice and Procedure

'Only CJI can assign cases': Supreme Court bench unhappy with another bench assigning a case to it. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Aggarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Supreme Court Practice and Procedure - If a particular bench in a particular situation finds that a matter needs to be placed before another bench, it is required to direct the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for obtaining appropriate orders. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Aggarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Supreme Court Practice and Procedure - It is a normal practice of this Court that the matter follows a judge who is part of the Bench which has passed an effective order. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Aggarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Property

Section 52 TP Act - Alienation of suit property pendente lite not invalid; but it'll be subject to rights of litigants. Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Rent Law

Subletting by tenant is impermissible under Bombay Rent Control Act unless contract allows it. Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Service Law

One Rank One Pension (OROP) - Supreme Court extends the time for Centre to disburse pension arrears for ex-servicemen under the OROP scheme. Indian Ex Service Movement v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 264

It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency, namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies. Unnikrishnan C.V. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Challenge to selection process - The criteria for evaluation of a candidate’s performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate’s personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel - Simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Tanvir Singh v. State of J&K, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Service of Employees in Zilla Parishad should be counted for seniority when ZP has been absorbed by Municipal Corporation. Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Pension - Supreme Court holds that the employees of Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board are not entitled to pension on a par with Government employees - Employees of a body corporate created by the State cannot be treated as State Government employees in all respects. Such a corollary proposition would practically amount to merging of the Board with the State Government - Entitlement of pension will be as per the Regulations of the Board. (Para 16.1) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Payment for Home Guards - Home Guards working in the State of Odisha are entitled to Duty Allowance as per the minimum amount of pay to which the police personnel in the State is entitled to. It further clarified that the Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the police personnel of the State and the Duty Allowance to be paid to the Home Guards should be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase from time to time. (Para 9, 10) Prakash Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Pension - The right to pensionary benefit is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification - the grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, but a right of the employee, and as such cannot be denied without proper justification. (Para 11 & 12) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207

Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules - In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail - There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same. (Para 25) Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Compassionate Appointment - Principles summarized. (Para 7.2) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Compassionate Appointment - Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. (Para 7.5) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Compassionate Appointment - Delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment. Government officials are to act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Compulsory retirement order can be set aside if it's found to be punitive & was passed to circumvent disciplinary proceedings. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Supreme Court sets aside order of CBDT passed to compulsorily retire a gazetted officer-any exercise of power that exceeds the parameters prescribed by law or is motivated on account of extraneous or irrelevant factors or is driven by malicious intent or is on the face of it, so patently arbitrary that it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, must be struck down -In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public. (Para 34) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Specific Performance

Section 28 Specific Relief Act - Time to deposit balance sale consideration cannot be extended as a matter of course. P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Supreme Court

'SCBA cannot assert right over the entire land allotted to SC': Supreme Court refuses to consider association's plea on judicial side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Tax

Income Tax Act - Date of panchnama last drawn starting point of limitation for completing block assessment proceedings. Anil Minda v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Tax Laws - Non-service of assessment orders inconsequential if assesee had knowledge about them otherwise - if the appellants had the knowledge of the order passed against them, then so-called irregularity in the manner of effecting the service of the order on them, etc. was of no consequence and cannot be termed as illegal. (Para 16,17 18) Commercial Tax Officer v. Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 199

KVAT Act | Dealer claiming input tax credit must prove transaction beyond reasonable doubt. State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187

The Supreme Court grants relief to ITAT member whose appointment was delayed for not filing income tax returns. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Tribunal

Can HC exercise jurisdiction over a tribunal situated outside its territorial limits? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Unlawful Aactivites

Mere membership of unlawful organization is UAPA offence: Supreme Court overrules 2011 precedents. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

No vagueness in UAPA provision criminalising membership of banned organisation; no chilling effect. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Wildlife

Time Limit under Rule 4(2) of Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules cannot be relaxed. Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215

The Supreme Court forms a committee to oversee transfer/import of wild animals in India. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Environment and Wildlife Protection - Supreme Court extends the jurisdiction of a committee constituted by the Tripura High Court to oversee transfer of wild animals pan-India- Court directs that all State and Central Authorities shall forthwith report seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive wild animals to the Committee and the Committee shall be at liberty to recommend transfer of ownership of captive animals or of seized wild animals to any willing rescue centre or zoo for their immediate welfare, care and rehabilitation- The Committee may also consider the request for approval, dispute or grievance, concerning transfer or import into India or procurement or welfare of wild animals by any rescue or rehabilitation centre or zoo. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Will

Will can't be presumed to be genuine merely because it is aged more than 30 years old. Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 - The relevant State Government has the implied power to issue a request to abolish the SAT in its state to the Union Government. The Union Government in turn has the implied power to rescind the notification by which that SAT was established, thereby abolishing the SAT. (Para 59) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the Odisha Administrative Tribunal because the doctrine cannot ordinarily be applied in cases where the government is formulating and implementing a policy. (Para 128 (f)) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 31(7) - Unless there is a specific bar under the contract, it is always open for the arbitrator / Arbitral Tribunal to award pendente lite interest. (Para 7.5) Indian Railway Construction Company v. National Buildings Construction Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 210

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Supreme Court sets aside the HC order which set aside an arbitral award - SC hold that HC exceeded in its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act quashing and setting aside the well-reasoned award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Indian Railway Construction Company v. National Buildings Construction Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 210

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972; Rule 13 - Service rendered as casual / contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment - Can't be counted towards qualifying services for pensionary benefits - The High Court has materially erred in observing that the contractual service would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity. Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation v. Magi H. Desai, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Central Excise Act, 1944 - No separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of erroneous refund - Once the order in original sanctioning the refund came to be set aside in a proceeding under Section 35E of the Act and the proceedings under Section 35E was initiated within the time prescribed under Section 35E of the Act, thereafter there is no question of any further notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 4(A) - For a sale of goods to qualify for assessment benefits under Section 4(A) of the Act, it must be a retail sale, and there must be a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix a retail price on the goods for a sale to be considered a retail sale. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Central Excise Act, 1994; Section 4(4)(c) - Test to determine "related party"- buyer and seller had to be interested in one another's businesses. Since two-way traffic is required, there shouldn't be any one-way traffic. Bilag Industries P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Daman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - In dealing with prayers for amendment of the pleadings the Courts should avoid hyper technical approach. But at the same time, we should keep reminded of the position that the same cannot be granted on the mere request through an application for amendment of the written statement, especially at the appellate stage. (Para 14) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 9 - If the right of redemption is not extinguished, the provision like Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC will not debar the mortgagor from filing a second suit because as in a partition suit, the cause of action in a redemption suit is a recurring one. The cause of action in each successive action, until the right of redemption is extinguished or a suit for redemption is time barred, is a different one. (Para 61, 62) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 9 - It was not the intention of the Legislature to bar the subsequent suits between the parties and the same was evident by the qualifying words, “same cause of action”. Therefore, everything depends upon the cause of action and in case the subsequent cause of action arose from a totally different bunch of facts, such suit cannot be axed by taking shelter to the provision of Order IX Rule 9 of CPC. (Para 52) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. (Para 38) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 23 - There can be no doubt with respect to the settled position that the Court to which the case is remanded has to comply with the order of remand and acting contrary to the order of remand is contrary to law. In other words, an order of remand has to be followed in its true spirit. (Para 7) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - Is the subsequent overruling of a precedent relied on in a judgment a ground to review it ? - Supreme Court 2-judge bench delivers split verdict - Justice MR Shah holds subsequent overruling is a ground to review - Justice BV Nagarathna disagrees. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2 - Suit can't be held to be abated in the event of death of one of the defendants, when the estate/interest was being fully and substantially represented in the suit jointly by the other defendants along with deceased defendant and when they are also his legal representatives - In such cases, by reason of non-impleadment of all other legal heirs consequential to the death of the said defendant, the defendants could not be heard to contend that the suit should stand abated on account of non-substitution of all the other legal representatives of the deceased defendant. (Para 36) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 3 – Advocate appearing for the Defendant could have signed the compromise petition without an express consent. It is an imperative duty of the Court to ascertain the genuineness and lawfulness of the compromise deed. (Para 100) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 3 - When a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a completed agreement between them-. In a suit for partition of joint property, a decree by consent amongst some only of the parties cannot be maintained. (Para 93, 94) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 438 - Is it necessary to exhaust remedy available in Sessions Court before approaching High Court?- Whether the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 has discretion not to entertain such an application on the ground that the applicant must first apply to the Court of Sessions - SC to consider. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 154 - Principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not provide for right of hearing before the registration of an FIR. (Para 30) State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - Power under Section 319 ought to be exercised sparingly and would require much stronger evidence than near probability of the accused person’s complicity. The test elucidated by the Constitution Bench is as under -The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 438 - Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a 'casting couch' rape case - The nature and gravity of the alleged offence has been disregarded by the HC - So has the financial stature, position and standing of the accused vis-à-vis the appellant/prosecutrix been ignored. (Para 22) Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - High Courts should endeavour to ensure that all basic essentials (i.e. FIR No., Date, the concerned police station and the offences allegedly committed etc.) are duly recorded or reflected in the format of the bail orders. Ravish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Remand - There seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. (Para 10) Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Delay in registering FIR - The immediate lodging of an FIR removes suspicion with regard to over implication of number of persons, particularly when the case involved a fight between two groups. When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR provides credence to the prosecution case. (Para 31) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The day of remand is to be included for considering a claim for default bail - the stipulated 60/90 day remand period under Section 167 CrPC ought to be computed from the date when a Magistrate authorizes remand - In cases where the chargesheet / final report is filed on or after the 61st/91st day, the accused in our considered opinion would be entitled to default bail. In other words, the very moment the stipulated 60/90 day remand period expires, an indefeasible right to default bail accrues to the accused - 3 judge bench answers reference. Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190 - the cognizance is taken of an offence and not of the offender - As such the phrase “taking cognizance” has nowhere been defined in the Cr.PC, however has been interpreted by this Court to mean “become aware of” or “to take notice of judicially. (Para 10) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190, 203 - an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code is no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts, but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, e.g. that the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 200 - No doubt, summoning of an accused is a serious matter and therefore the Magistrate before issuing the summons to the accused is obliged to scrutinize carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face any frivolous complaint, nonetheless one of the objects of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is also to enable the Magistrate to prosecute a person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Just as it is necessary to curtail vexatious and frivolous complaints against innocent persons, it is equally essential to punish the guilty after conducting a fair trial. (Para 18) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 256 - Where the complainant had already been examined as a witness in the case, it would not be appropriate for the Court to pass an order of acquittal merely on non-appearance of the complainant. BLS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Rajwant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - It is optional for the accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility. (Para 16) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Iudicial experience has shown that more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either the accused elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions with stereotypes like ‘false’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘incorrect’, etc. Many a time, this does more harm than good to the cause of the accused. For instance, if facts within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that could be a factor against the accused. Though such factor by itself is not conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the circumstances. (Para 16) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Settled principles summarized. (Para 15) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 (5) - Once a written statement is filed by the accused under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court marks it as exhibit, such statement must be treated as part of the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) read with Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. (Para 17) Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal- Scope of interference - Unless such a finding is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody even though an order of bail was earlier granted in his favour in respect of the offences with which he was charged when his application for bail was considered and a favourable order was passed. The recourse available to an accused in a situation where after grant of bail, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added to the FIR, is for him to surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences. The investigating agency is also entitled to move the Court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5)3 and 439(2)34 Cr.P.C., falling under Chapter XXXII of the Statute that deals with provisions relating to bails and bonds. (Para 20) Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Victim has right to be heard in bail application of the accused - No doubt, the State was present and was represented in the said proceedings, but the right of the prosecutrix could not have been whittled down for this reason alone. In a crime of this nature where ordinarily, there is no other witness except for the prosecutrix herself, it was all the more incumbent for the High Court to have lent its ear to the appellant. (Para 23, 24) Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings - The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Supreme Court criticises Kerala HC for overstepping jurisdiction to pass general orders - High Court in its overzealous approach" exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by enlarging the scope of the petition and crossed all the boundaries of judicial activism and judicial restraint by passing such orders under the guise of doing real and substantial justice. (Para 28) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Supreme Court opines that it is desirable that High Courts refrain from quashing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act even if it suspected that the case is registered by a new government against officers who supported the previous government-it would be eminently desirable if the high courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to “corruption” cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible. (Para 74) State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 323A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs. (Para 32) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - It is true that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, are usually, not to be interfered with. However, it is only in the presence of exceptional circumstances, this Court exercises its wide powers where there is travesty of justice and when absurd and erroneous conclusions are drawn by the Courts below. We are of the opinion that this is one such case fit for exercising the powers entrusted to us as a duty under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 17) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Power of the Supreme Court - In the absence of very special circumstances or in the presence of gross errors of law committed by the High Court, the Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. The limitations under Article 136 are self-imposed limitations where in the ordinary course appreciation of evidence is not to be done in the absence of manifest error or the judgment, subject matter of the special leave, being ex facie perverse. (Para 17.10) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in respect of cases where concurrent findings are recorded by the Lower Courts – If doubt lingers with respect to the probability or conclusiveness of any circumstance relied on by the prosecution, forming a link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of convict, despite the existence of concurrent findings, the evidence has to be scrutinized by the Supreme Court so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and it points to the guilt of the convict and it did not brook any hypothesis other than the guilt of the convict. (Para 13) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Though the Scope of Article 136 of Constitution of India is very wide, the power conferred thereunder being a very special and extraordinary power, it has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases. (Para 15) Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Insolvency of Reliance Home Finance Ltd (RHFL) - the Supreme Court allowed the Resolution Plan (RP) proposed by Authum Investments and Infrastructure Ltd. (AIIL) to cover the debenture holders of RHFL - the plan will not cover dissenting debenture holders - the dissenting debenture holders should be provided an option to accept the terms of the resolution plan who proposed such acquisition or they can pursue other legal remedies to recover their dues. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot issue directions in violation of the statutory provisions; and sympathy or sentiment, by itself, cannot be a ground for passing an order beyond and contrary to the legal rights. (Para 23) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 167 - The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. Once such information is sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it - Not furnishing the information which was sought by the Governor would be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b). (Para 24) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 174 - There can be no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted to the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion. (Para 22) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(1) - the legal position to be taken into consideration is that an Amendment Act cannot post facto criminalize possession. This proposition does not require much deliberation and is well settled that retroactive criminal legislation being violative of Article 20(1), one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution is prohibited. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of money under the bills/invoices should not have been entertained by the High Court, more particularly, when in fact the original writ petitioner(s) availed the remedy before Civil Court and filed Civil Suit, which came to be dismissed in default. Director of Agriculture v. M.V. Ramachandran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging orders of Armed Forces Tribunal are maintainable - To deny the High Court to correct any error which the Armed Forces Tribunal may fall into, even in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, would be against the constitutional scheme. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Concept of forum conveniens - Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court, the same by itself could not have been a determinative factor compelling the High Court to keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant to decide the matter qua the impugned notification, on merit. (Para 18) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Guiding tests to determine whether part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court- In the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such ‘cause of action’ is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed- Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action - In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant- It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction- Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted- Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. (Para 15) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a challenge to an order passed by a Tribunal situated outside its jurisdiction - Supreme Court refers to larger bench. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Tax has been levied by the Government of Goa in respect of a business that the petitioning company is carrying on within the territory of Goa- Such tax is payable by the petitioning company not in respect of carrying on of any business in the territory of Sikkim- Merely because the petitioning company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, the same by itself does not form an integral part of the cause of action authorizing the petitioning company to move the High Court. (Para 16) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30(1) - It is not open to the appellant society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. (Para 16) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30(1) - Setting up a reasonable fee structure is also a component of the right to establish and administer an institution, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly or in any form - it is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving that purpose. (Para 12) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be maintained in order to challenge a binding judgment of the Supreme Court. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Plea of Supreme Court Bar Association for conversion of plot allotted to the Court as lawyers' chambers cannot be entertained on the judicial side - However, matter left open to be considered on the administrative side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - SC refuses to entertain petition seeking a framework which would allow citizens to petition directly to the Parliament - The reliefs which have been sought fall exclusively within the domain of Parliament. Such directions cannot be issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Karan Garg v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 324 (2) - Appointment to the posts of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be done by the President of India on the basis of the advice tendered by a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and, in case, there is no such Leader, the Leader of the largest Party in the Opposition in the Lok Sabha having the largest numerical strength, and the Chief Justice of India. This norm will continue to hold good till a law is made by the Parliament - As regards the relief relating to putting in place a permanent Secretariat for the Election Commission of India and charging its expenditure to the Consolidated Fund of India is concerned, the Court makes a fervent appeal that the Union of India/Parliament may consider bringing in the necessary changes so that the Election Commission of India becomes truly independent. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority. (Para 101) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - the notification dated 2 August 2019 was not issued in the name of the President. However, this does not render the notification invalid. The effect of not complying with Article 77 is that the Union Government cannot claim the benefit of the irrebuttable presumption that the notification dated 2 August 2019 was issued by the President. Hence, the appellants’ argument that the notification dated 2 August 2019 is invalid and unconstitutional is specious. (Para 102) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 - Rule 3 prescribed a minimum professional experience of 20 years for consideration to appointment of members as State Consumer Commissions- Rule 4 prescribed a minimum professional experience of 20 years for consideration to appointment of members as District Consumer Commissions- Rules struck down as violative of the SC judgment in Madras Bar Association judgment which held that lawyers with 10 years of professional experience are eligible for appointment as Tribunal members -the High Court in the impugned judgment and order has rightly observed and held that Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020 which are contrary to the decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association; (2017) 1 SCC 444 and the Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another; (2021) 7 SCC 369 are unconstitutional and arbitrary. (Para 6.4) Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 - Rule 6(9) lacks transparency and it confers uncontrolled discretion and excessive power to the Selection Committee. Under Rule 6(9), the Selection Committee is empowered with the uncontrolled discretionary power to determine its procedure to recommend candidates to be appointed as President and Members of the State and District Commission. (Para 6.5) Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 - Till the amendments are made in order to do complete justice under A. 142 we direct that in future a person having Bachelor’s degree from a recognised university and who is a person of ability, integrity standing and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. shall be treated as qualified for appointment as President and member of State and District Commission. We also direct that for appointment the appointment shall be based on the performance in 2 papers. Qualifying marks in the papers shall be 50% and there must be a viva for 50 marks each. (Para 8.2) Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts. There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it. (Para 12) Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 - Supreme Court directs Centre and States to amend the rules in terms of the directions in Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161 within a period of three months. In Re: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Supreme Court affirms contempt of court proceedings against advocate for raising frivolous allegation that another lawyer was taking money from clients in the name of judges - Reduces penalty from Rupees 2 lakhs to Rs 1 Lakh. Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - While it is open to the High court to come to any conclusion on the basis of the pleadings and materials available on record, it is not open to the Court to summon the appearance of the officials at the drop of the hat. State of U.P. v. Prahalad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings initiated against a doctor for stocking small quantities of medicine - Such stocking will not amount to the offence of unauthorized stocking of medicines as per Section 18(c) - When small quantity of medicine has been found in the premises of a registered medical practitioner, it would not amount to selling their medicines across the counter in an open shop. (Para 9) S. Athilakshmi v. State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 194

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Sections 18 and 27 - The provisions of Section 18 and 27 are relevant provisions under the law, which have a social purpose, which is to protect ordinary citizens from being exploited inter alia, by unethical medical practitioners, and for this reason the punishment under Section 27 can extend up to 5 years under the law, and has a minimum punishment of 3 years. But given the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the Appellant is a registered medical practitioner, along with the fact that the quantity of medicines which have been seized is extremely small, a quantity which can be easily found in the house or a consultation room of a doctor, in our considered view no offence is made out in the present case. (Para 9) S. Athilakshmi v. State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 194

Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1940; Rule 123 - Schedule K - Drugs stored by a doctor exempted from offence of unauthorized stocking and selling under certain conditions. (Para 8) S. Athilakshmi v. State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 194

Electricity Act, 2003 - Compensation for "Change in Law" clause in PPA - SC dismisses petition filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited challenging the ‘Change in Law’ compensation granted by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to Adani Power Maharashtra Limited and GMR Warora Energy Limited-we find that the stand taken by the DISCOMS that, since the loss being sustained by the generating companies is on account of non-fulfillment of obligation by CIL/Coal Companies, they should be relegated to the remedy available to them in law against the CIL/Coal Companies, is totally unreasonable. The claim is based on change of NCDP 2007 by NCDP 2013, which, undisputedly, is covered by the term ‘Change in Law. (Para 151) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Electricity Act, 2003 - Diversion of gas to other generating stations not sufficient ground to seek compensation when Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) has no such provision. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Electricity Act, 2003 - The Court took note of the fact that the DISCOMS (Distribution Companies) which are instrumentalities of the State had taken contrary view to that of the Union Government, which contemplates that the generators would be entitled to pass-through for the coal required to be imported or purchased from the open market on the ground of Change in Law. Referring to Central Warehousing Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) And Ors. (2022), the Court observed that the Apex Court had deprecated the practice of different instrumentalities of the State taking contradictory / different positions / stands on the same issue - We have come across a number of matters wherein concurrent orders passed by the Regulatory Body and the Appellate Forum are assailed. Such a litigation would, in fact, efface the purpose of the Electricity Act. As already discussed herein above, one of the major reasons for the enactment of the Electricity Act was the deterioration in performance of the State Electricity Boards. (Para 150) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Supreme Court upholds the directions of NGT Chennai that all petroleum outlets in cities having population of more than 10 lakh and having turnover of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the Vapour Recovery System (VRS) mechanism- SC however sets aside NGT directions that new petroleum outlets should mandatorily obtain Consent to Establish and existing outlets should have Consent to Operate. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Evidence Act 1872 - Circumstantial Evidence - The law with regard to conviction in the case of circumstance evidence – Explained. (Para 8 to 10) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act 1872 - Extra-judicial confession - Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. (Para 5) Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Evidence Act 1872 - Extra-judicial confession - Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. (Para 5) Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Evidence Act 1872 - In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances - The basic links in the chain of circumstances starts with motive, then move on to last seen theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances. (Para 12, 15) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Evidence Act 1872 - It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act 1872; Section 9 - Test Identification Parade - The entire necessity for holding an investigation parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source - Investigation parade does not hold much value when the identity of the accused is already known to the witness. (Para 9) Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Evidence Act, 1872 - Circumstantial Evidence - Every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt - All the circumstances must be consistently pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (Para 10) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Evidence Act, 1872 - Extra-judicial Confession - It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. (Para 15) Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Evidence Act, 1872 - Extra-judicial confession - The extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial. It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful. (Para 21) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Evidence Act, 1872 - In cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Evidence Act, 1872 - In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and the case proven beyond reasonable doubt. Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness. (Para 8) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Evidence Act, 1872 - It is not the quantity but the quality of witnesses and evidence that can either make or break the case of the prosecution. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the testimonies of the witnesses that it seeks to rely upon are of sterling quality. (Para 10) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Evidence Act, 1872 - It is the duty of the prosecution to establish use of the weapon discovered in the commission of the crime. Failure to do so may cause aberration in the course of justice. (Para 15) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Evidence Act, 1872 - Murder trial - Principle of corpus delicti – non-recovery of the corpse would have relevance in considering the links of chain of circumstances. (Para 16) Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Evidence Act, 1872 - Suspicion, howsoever great it may be, is no substitute of proof in criminal jurisprudence - Only such evidence is admissible and acceptable as is permissible in accordance with law. (Para 8) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Last seen theory - On its own, last seen theory is considered to be a weak basis for conviction. However, when the same is coupled with other factors such as when the deceased was last seen with the accused, proximity of time to the recovery of the body of deceased etc., the accused is bound to give an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If he does not do so, or furnishes what may be termed as wrong explanation or if a motive is established – pleading securely to the conviction of the accused closing out the possibility of any other hypothesis, then a conviction can be based thereon. (Para 17.7) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 113A - Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC. (Para 14) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 69 - In the event where attesting witnesses may have died, or cannot be found, the propounder is not helpless, as Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable. (Para 17) Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 90 - Wills cannot be proved only on the basis of their age – the presumption under Section 90 as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills - Wills have to be proved in terms of Sections 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 13) Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190

Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Partition Suit - Effect of 2005 amendment to pending partition suit - As the law governing the parties has been amended before the conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the party benefitted by such amendment (like the two daughters in the case on hand) can make a request to the Trial Court to take cognizance of the Amendment and give effect to the same. (Para 80) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Hindu Succession Act 1956 - the institution of a suit for partition by a member of a joint family is a clear intimation of his intention to separate, and there was consequential severance of the status of jointness - In case during the pendency of partition suit or during the period between the passing of preliminary decree and final decree in the partition suit, any legislative amendment or any subsequent event takes place which results in enlargement or diminution of the shares of the parties or alteration of their rights, whether such legislative amendment or subsequent event can be into consideration and given effect to while passing final decree in the partition suit - Even though filing of partition suit brings about severance of status of jointness, such legislative amendment or subsequent event will have to be taken into consideration and given effect to in passing the final decree in the partition suit - This is because, the partition suit can be regarded as fully and completely decided only when the final decree is passed. It is by a final decree that partition of property of joint Hindu Family takes place by metes and bounds. (Para 73(C)) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - Regulation 30 - NCLT as well as NCLAT were right in holding that the possession of the Corporate Debtor, of the property needs to be protected. This is why a direction under Regulation 30 had been issued to the local district administration. (Para 50) Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Income Tax Act 1961- the date of the Panchnama last drawn can be said to be the relevant date and can be said to be the starting point of limitation of two years for completing the block assessment proceedings. Anil Minda v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963; Rule 11 - Age of retirement of the Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) - In terms of the provisions, a member of ITAT to continue in the post till the age of 62 years. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The Supreme Court grants relief to ITAT member whose appointment was delayed for not filing income tax returns and allowed to continue in the post till the age of 62 years as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961. Although she had applied in pursuance of a notification issued in 2013, she was given appointment only in 2018, as there was a dispute regarding non-filing of income tax returns by her with respect to the relevant assessment year (2010-11). In June 2017, the Calcutta High Court had granted her relief by holding that she cannot be excluded merely on the ground that she had not filed income tax returns. In the meantime, the Centre had brought in new rules for appointment to Tribunals, namely Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017. The letter of appointment was issued to her in terms of the 2017 Rules, fixing her term as three years. The bench held that the right of the applicant to appointment had been crystallized even before the 2017 Rules. Therefore, the appointment of the applicant would be governed by the position as it existed prior to the 2017 Rules. In other words, her tenure shall be extended until she attains the age of 62 years. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 31 - After passing of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of IBC by the Adjudicating Authority and in the light of Section 32A of IBC, the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act will stand terminated only in relation to the Corporate Debtor if the same is taken over by a new management. (Para 86) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 31 - Process under the IBC whether under Section 31 or Sections 38 to 41 cannot extinguish criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act 1881 against former directors of the corporate debtor. (Para 18) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2018, is binding upon the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). (Para 34) Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) - Once the Resolution Plan stands approved, no alterations/modifications are permissible. It is either to be approved or disapproved, but any modification after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, based on its commercial wisdom, is not open for judicial review unless it is found to be not in conformity with the mandate of the IBC Code. (Para 22) SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - the development rights created in favour of the Corporate Debtor constitute “property” within the meaning of the expression under Section 3(27) of IBC -Since the expression “asset” in common parlance denotes “property of any kind”, the bundle of rights that the Corporate Debtor has over the property in question would constitute “asset” within the meaning of Section 18(f) and Section 25(2)(a) of IBC- these rights and interests in the immovable property are definitely liable to be included by the Resolution Professional in the Information Memorandum and the Resolution Professional is duty bound under Section 25(2)(a) to take custody and control of the same. (Para 37) Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The exclusion of assets owned by a thirdparty, but in the possession of the Corporate Debtor held under contractual arrangements, from the definition of the expression “assets”, is limited to Section 18. In other words, the Explanation under Section 18 does not extend to Section 25. Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12A - Section 12A does not debar entertaining applications for withdrawal even before constitution of CoC; application cannot be kept pending for constitution of CoC. (Para 35) Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 9 (2) - Once the applicant has discharged his onus, in support of his claim of juvenility by producing the date of birth certificate from the school, the State had to come up with any compelling contradictory evidence to show that the recordal of his date of birth in the admission register was false. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 9 (2) - Death penalty case reopened to inquire into juvenility claim - Convict found to be a juvenile after 28 years of offence - Supreme Court orders release. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 9 (2) - So far as the procedure for making an inquiry by the Court, Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act does not prescribe scrupulously following trial procedure, as stipulated in the 1973 Code and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015; Section 18 - The JJB having found a child to be in conflict with law who may have committed a petty or serious offence and where heinous offence is committed, the child should be below 16 years, can pass various orders under clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) and also sub-section (2). However, the net result is that whatever punishment is to be provided, the same cannot exceed a period of three years and the JJB has to take full care of ensuring the best facilities that could be provided to the child for providing reformative services including 19 education, skill development, counselling and psychiatric support. (Para 16) Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015; Section 9(3) - A trial conducted and conviction recorded by the Sessions Court would not be held to be vitiated in law even though subsequently the person tried has been held to be a child - It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 Act would be attracted and any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 Act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 Act. (Para 30-33) Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 5A - Merely because Section 5A has not been mentioned in the said order, the entire acquisition proceedings including notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 and more particularly the declaration which was issued after considering the report/objections under section 5A cannot be declared illegal. When the Collector has exercised the power of the appropriate government and a declaration under section 6 of the Act has been issued after considering the report on the objections under Section 5A of the Act, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the aforesaid ground. (Para 12, 12.3) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Delhi) - Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Delhi) - Land Reforms Act not applicable to area covered under Municipal Corporation Act - Once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. (Para 36) Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191

Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981 - Merely because a person is having a licence and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop. (Para 6.6) Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; Section 54 - the words used in Section 54 of the Adhiniyam are “fails to commence implementation”. That does not mean that there must be implementation of the scheme within the time stipulated under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. There is a clear distinction between the words “implementation” of the scheme and “to commence implementation”- word “implementation” occurring in section 54 of the Adhiniyam cannot be construed to mean that even after substantial steps have been taken by the authority towards the implementation of the scheme, the scheme shall lapse after the expiry of three years because of its non-completion within that period - Approves MP HC judgment in Sanjai Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of M.P.AIR 1991 MP 72. (Para 8, 9) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; Section 54 - When within three years various steps were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire the land by negotiations and even thereafter on failure to acquire the land by negotiations approaching the State Government to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. The High Court has adopted too narrow a meaning while interpreting and/or considering section 54 of the Adhiniyam. (Para 11) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007; Section 9(1) - It is only by way of regulating the fees so proposed that the AFRC would exercise the power of reviewing the proposed fees, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the educational institution concerned. The contrary stand taken by the AFRC, as is evident from its communications to the appellant society, therefore cannot be countenanced. It is not open to the AFRC to seek to unilaterally fix the fees to be charged by the appellant society for the professional courses offered through its educational institutions. (Para 16) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Section 439 read with Clause (5) of Appendix IV - Service of employees in Zilla Parishad (ZP) should be counted for seniority when Zilla Parishad has been absorbed by Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Clause 5(c), including its first proviso, occupies this field of law till date. The provision explicitly deals with protection of conditions of service of the officers and servants who were earlier employed in a local authority like a ZP, and who have been subsequently absorbed into a Municipal Corporation. It expressly protects their service rendered by them in the local authority before the appointed day and further provides that it shall be considered as service rendered in the Municipal Corporation itself. Given the existence of this unambiguous provision, the only logical conclusion is that the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to be treated as service rendered in the PMC. Such service, therefore, has to be counted towards the determination of their seniority as well. (Para 21) Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (Orissa) - Rule 51(7) - Collector is the competent authority to cancel a lease deed for non-production of solvency certificate. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 – Effect of delay in trial – Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial not fettered by Section 37 – Imperative of Section 436A of Code of Criminal Procedure Act – Requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods – Applicable to offences under the NDPS Act – Held, special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can only be considered within constitutional parameters when the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record that the accused is not guilty – A plain and literal would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether - Further held, appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail – Appeal allowed. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260

National Green Tribunal Act 2010 - Supreme Court allows housing society's appeal against NGT's direction to halt constructions near a lake- issue whether the construction was in submerged area was decided in earlier civil proceedings in favour of the society- that decree was affirmed by the SC- So NGT could not have ignored the decree- he decree was affirmed by all the courts. When the NGT was made aware of this fact, it chose to ignore it. Without a review, or any known process by which a decree concerning the same facts could be reopened, the NGT could not have rejected the society’s contentions. The society’s appeal, therefore, requires to succeed. Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Johi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 258

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Challenge to Environmental Clearance - Whether against the corrigendum to the EC along with additional conditions, an appeal before the NGT would be maintainable or not-An aggrieved person may always challenge the corrigendum imposing additional conditions to the Environmental Clearance, but the appeal would be restricted to the corrigendum if the original EC is not under challenge and/or the original EC has been confirmed by the NGT earlier on certain conditions which have not been challenged. (Para 9) IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - NGT has the jurisdiction to direct the CPCB that it should in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. (Para 44, 47) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Section 138 - Approval of resolution plan of corporate debtor will not extinguish the liability of erstwhile director for dishonour of cheque. (Para 17, 18 & 47, 52) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881; Section 138 - Where the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act had already commenced and during the pendency the plan is approved or the company gets dissolved, the directors and the other accused cannot escape from their liability by citing its dissolution. (Para 52) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - by operation of the provisions of the IBC, the criminal prosecution initiated against the natural persons under Section 138 read with 141 of the NI Act read with Section 200 of the CrPC would not stand terminated. (Para 47) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Penal Code 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court reverses concurrent findings of guilt entered by the trial court and High Court - Says exceptional case where gross errors are committed, overlooking crying circumstances and well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence leading to miscarriage of justice. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Penal Code 1860; Section 375 Exception 2 - Sex with minor wife aged 16 years - Supreme Court acquits husband relying on exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Penal Code, 1860 - Constitutional Courts can impose fixed term sentence even in cases where death penalty was not proposed - "Even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed-term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on. (Para 13) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w. 34 - In a case rested on circumstantial evidence and ‘last seen’ theory is relied on as a link in the chain of circumstances, the evidence relating the time at which the deceased was lastly seen with the accused has to be proved conclusively as when it is proximate with the time of finding the dead body the burden to establish the innocence would be that of the accused. (Para 24) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 364A – Kidnapping for ransom vis-à-vis kidnapping simpliciter – Proof of kidnapping for ransom – Punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as such has a higher evidentiary threshold – Three stages or components, namely, first, kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention; second, threat to cause death or hurt, and the use of kidnapping, abduction, or detention with a demand to pay the ransom; and third, when the demand is not met, then causing death – Fulfilment of second ingredient, namely, threat to cause death or hurt – Intimidation of child victim, for the purpose of making them silent not adequate – Held, prosecution’s case did not prove second ingredient beyond reasonable doubt as a result of the victim’s statement being subsequently modified to reflect crucial differences that would enable the prosecution to drive home the kidnapping for ransom charge – Further held, conviction under Section 364A ought to be altered in exercise of power under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure into the lesser offence under Section 363 – Appeal partly allowed. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Penal Code, 1860 - That the accused has no antecedents, is no consideration by itself for deciding whether the accused will fall in the category of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases. It all depends on several factors. The Court, while considering the possibility of reformation of the accused, must note that showing undue leniency in such a brutal case will adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system. The Court must consider the rights of the victim as well. (Para 15) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Cases involving several accused Persons - Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew would be committed in prosecution of that object. If an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing an offence, and if that offence is committed in prosecution of the object by any member of the unlawful assembly, all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even if one or more, but not all committed the offence. Again, if an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and that offence is one which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offence so committed. While overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149. When a case involves large number of assailants it is not possible for the witness to describe the part played therein by each of such persons. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove each of the members’ involvement especially regarding which or what act. (Para 17.8) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - In case of proven previous enmity, a possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. (Para 34) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused would assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. (Para 26) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court sets aside conviction in a murder case - Notes that the Trial Court and the High Court grossly erred in their appreciation of evidence. Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Penal Code, 1860; Section 53 - The majority view in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., 2016 (7) SCC 1 cannot be construed to mean that power to impose fixed term sentence cannot be exercised by the Constitutional Courts unless the question is of commuting the death sentence - When a Constitutional Court finds that though a case is not falling in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, considering the gravity and nature of the offence and all other relevant factors, it can always impose a fixed-term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission, etc. is not available to the accused. (Para 12) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 306, 107 - In order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established - In order to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. (Para 6-10) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand and recovery both must be proved to sustain conviction under the Act - Conviction set aside as demand was not proved. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In the present case, there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - It is desirable that High Courts maintain a "hands-off" approach and not quash FIRs relating to corruption cases at investigation stage-This is because, it is difficult to form an opinion conclusively at the stage of reading a first information report that the public servant is either in or not in possession of property disproportionate to the known sources of his/her income. It would all depend on what is ultimately unearthed after the investigation is complete -The considerations that could apply to quashing of first information reports pertaining to offences punishable under general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a P.C. Act offence. (Para 74) State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - the complainant did not produce a copy of the application made by him for providing electricity meter - the complainant did not clearly tell that he had given such application. In absence of proof of making such application, the prosecution’s case regarding demand of bribe for installing new electricity meter becomes doubtful. (Para 18) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Zero Tolerance to Corruption - Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly ‘corruption’. Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. (Para 49) State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 - Demand of Gratification - When we consider the issue of proof of demand within the meaning of Section 7, it cannot be a simpliciter demand for money but it has to be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration - Every demand made for payment of money is not a demand for gratification. It has to be something more than mere demand for money. (Para 16, 17) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 20 and 7 - The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only when the two basic facts required to be proved under Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification. The presumption under Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7. However, this presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the presumption. (Para 11) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 7 and 13 – In absence of direct evidence, the demand and/or acceptance can always be proved by other evidence such as circumstantial evidence – Also, allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt - the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary for a conviction under the Act does not dilute the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 14) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 7 and 13 - The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved and laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. (Para 14) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay) - In the ordinary course and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, unless the contract itself permits sub-letting, it shall not be lawful, after coming into operation of the Act of 1947, for a tenant to sub-let the premises let out to him or to assign or transfer in any manner his interest therein - The very act of execution of the assignment document was sufficient in itself to complete the breach of the lease condition and the statutory mandate and did not require anything further. Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; Rule 39AA - Constitutional validity of - Open Ballot System in Rajya Sabha Elections - Information regarding casting of votes - The petitioner has sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 39AA on the ground that it is (i) ultra vires Article 80(4) of the Constitution; (ii) violative of Article 14; and (iii) contrary to the provisions of Section 123(2) of the 1951 Act - The challenge must fail in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Kuldip Nayar v Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1 - The provision was inserted specifically to prevent cross-voting in elections to the Council of States. In this backdrop, there is no merit in the challenge. [Para 11 – 16] Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Representation of the People Act, 1951; Proviso to Section 33 – Constitutional validity of - Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination - The proviso stipulates that a candidate who is not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election unless the nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers who are electors of the constituency. This lies purely in the realm of legislative policy. There is nothing per se discriminatory in the provision. Parliament is entitled to regulate the manner in which nomination papers should be presented and the requirements for a valid nomination. [Para 18 – 20] Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Once the land owner refuses to accept the amount of compensation offered by the Acquiring Body, thereafter it will not be open for the original land owner to pray for lapse of acquisition on the ground that the compensation has not been paid. State of Gujarat v Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Is the overruling of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) by a Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) a ground to review judgments which followed Pune Municipal Corporation? Supreme Court 2- judge bench delivers split verdict - Justice MR Shah holds subsequent overruling is a ground to review - Justice BV Nagarathna disagrees. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of schedule III of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub­Brokers) Regulations, 1992. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Service Law - Appointment order of petitioner as constable of police cancelled as it was found that the the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and was under arrest for four days and he consciously concealed the said information - Mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to the reinstatement in service - If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot obviously be inferred that he was falsely involved, or he had no criminal antecedents - Director General being the highest functionary in the police hierarchy, was the best judge to consider the suitability of the petitioner for induction into the police force. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 - Rehabilitation scheme under Section 18 of the SICA, 1985 shall bind all the creditors including the unsecured creditors - Dues cannot be recovered post revival of sick company - Compelling unsecured creditors to accept the scaled down value of their dues would not be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the rehabilitation scheme is prepared under Section 18 of SICA, which has a binding effect on all the creditors. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 - Object behind enacting the Act, 1976 is to provide for forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators, and at the same time to ensure effective prevention of smuggling activities and foreign exchange manipulation - It is necessary to deprive persons engaged in such activities and manipulations of their ill-gotten gains. It also provides that such persons have been augmenting such gains by violations of wealth tax, income tax or other laws or by other means and have thereby been increasing their resources for operating in a clandestine manner and to nail such persons who are holding the properties acquired by them through such gains in the name of their relatives, associates and confidants. (Para 9) Platinum Theatre v. Competent Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 28 - The Court cannot as a matter of course, allow extension of time for making payment of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree - The Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale-the power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and the Court has to pass an order as the justice may require. (Para 7) P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Transfer of Property Act 1882; Section 60 - Right to redemption of mortgage- Unless the equity of redemption is so extinguished, a second suit for redemption by the mortgagor, if filed within the period of limitation, is not therefore barred. (Para 61, 62) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 52 - Lis Pendens - It is a well-nigh settled position that wherever TP Act is not applicable, such principle in the said provision of the said Act, which is based on justice, equity and good conscience is applicable in a given similar circumstance, like Court sale etc. - Transfer of possession pendente lite will also be transfer of property within the meaning of Section 52 and, therefore, the import of Section 52 of the TP Act is that if there is any transfer of right in immovable property during the pendency of a suit such transfer will be non est in the eye of law if it will adversely affect the interest of the other party to the suit in the property concerned. We may hasten to add that the effect of Section 52 is that the right of the successful party in the litigation in regard to that property would not be affected by the alienation, but it does not mean that as against the transferor the transaction is invalid. (Para 16) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules - In 2019, the Supreme Court struck down the 2017 Tribunal Rules in the case Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank and directed that the appointments should be made as per the provisions of the parent statute. Later, in the 2020 Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court dealt with the subsequent Rules framed by the Centre in 2020 in relation to tribunal appointments. In July 2021, the Supreme Court clarified in the Madras Bar Association case, that all appointments made before 4 April 2021 would be governed by the parent statutes. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 10(a)(i) does not suffer from any vagueness and/or on the ground unreasonable and/or disproportionate. (Para 16.1) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784; Arup Bhuyan v. Union of India, (2011) 3 SCC 377 and Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam, 2011 (3) SCC 380 taking the view that under Section 3(5) of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 mere membership of a banned organization will not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence and does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence and reading down the said provisions to mean that over and 2 above the membership of a banned organization there must be an overt act and/or further criminal activities and adding the element of mens rea are held to be not a good law. (Para 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Upholds the Constitutionality of Section 10(a)(i) - Overrules the judgments in Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, Indra Das v. State of Assam and State of Kerala v. Raneef which held that mere membership of a banned association is not sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, unless it is accompanied with some overt violent-Court ought not to have read down Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967 more particularly when neither the constitutional validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967 was under challenge nor the Union of India was heard. (Para 11.5, 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - When an association is declared unlawful by notification issued under Section 3 which has become effective of sub-section 3 of that Section, a person who is and continues to be a member of such association is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine under Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967. (Para 18) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 10(a)(i) - Mere possibility of misuse cannot be a ground and/or relevant consideration while considering the constitutionality. (Para 16) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 10(a)(i) - Once an organization is declared unlawful after due procedure and despite that a person who is a member of such unlawful association continues to be a member of such unlawful association then he has to face the consequences and is subjected to the penal provisions as provided under Section 10 more particularly Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, 1967. (Para 14.5) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Value Added Tax, 2003 (Karnataka); Section 70 - Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast under section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - The dealer claiming ITC has to prove beyond doubt the actual transaction which can be proved by furnishing the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc -the genuineness of the transaction has to be proved as the burden to prove the genuineness of transaction as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003 would be upon the purchasing dealer. (Para 9.1) State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Individuals who have made a declaration of ownership of 'exotic live species' in accordance with the advisory issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change are immune from prosecution - Since it has been held that Advisory was an Amnesty Scheme and declarants are immune from prosecution, the same would obviously mean that declarants are immune from prosecution or action under any future laws and amendments incorporated in the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972 - Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - As per Rule 4(2), application/declaration under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 for ownership certificate has to be made within a period of 180 days from the date of commencement of the Rules, 2003. Looking to the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A and the object and purpose for which Rules, 2003 has been enacted the period of 180 days prescribed under Rule 4(2) has to be construed and considered as mandatory, otherwise the object and purpose of the Act, 1972 and the Rules, 2003 shall be frustrated. (Para 5) Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972 - Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - Once a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or wildlife animal article, fails to file such declaration and/or fails to make any application within the stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) then the bar/rigour under Section 40 shall be applicable and the ownership of such wildlife animal article of which the declaration is not made shall vest in the Government/forest department. (Para 5.1) Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Words and Phrases - Honourable Acquittal - The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, and it is difficult to define precisely what is meant by expressions “honourable acquittal”. (Para 8-11) Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 250
2. Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195
3. Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 237
4. Anil Minda v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 246
5. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155
6. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234
7. Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 196
8. Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190
9. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
10. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173
11. Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 263
12. Bilag Industries P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Daman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257
13. BLS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Rajwant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 153
14. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165
15. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203
16. Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 251
17. Commercial Tax Officer v. Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 199
18. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223
19. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 259
20. Creative Garments Ltd. v. Kashiram Verma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 198
21. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174
22. Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation v. Magi H. Desai, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 248
23. Director of Agriculture v. M.V. Ramachandran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 220
24. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v Ajit Mondal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 209
25. Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249
26. Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189
27. Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177
28. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204
29. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222
30. Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 240
31. Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230
32. Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180
33. Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202
34. IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192
35. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150
36. In Re : Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 238
37. In Re: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 201
38. Indian Ex Service Movement v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 264
39. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185
40. Indian Railway Construction Company v. National Buildings Construction Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 210
41. Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183
42. Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152
43. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232
44. Karan @ Fatiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 159
45. Karan Garg v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 235
46. Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149
47. Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254
48. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178
49. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241
50. Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229
51. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166
52. Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 218
53. Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161
54. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208
55. Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260
56. Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191
57. Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205
58. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164
59. Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186
60. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 244
61. Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227
62. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211
63. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171
64. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216
65. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Aggarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 182
66. P. Raman v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 169
67. P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 151
68. Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197
69. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221
70. Pinak Pani Mohanty vs Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 255
71. Platinum Theatre v. Competent Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 226
72. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239
73. Prakash Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 213
74. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262
75. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168
76. Pulen Phukan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 265
77. R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207
78. Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 181
79. Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225
80. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167
81. Ravish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 206
82. Royden Harold Buthello v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 154
83. S. Athilakshmi v. State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 194
84. Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157
85. Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233
86. Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh P.S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 219
87. Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212
88. Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252
89. Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261
90. Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Johi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 258
91. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170
92. SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231
93. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243
94. State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158
95. State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184
96. State of Gujarat v Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 247
97. State of Haryana v. Satpal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 163
98. State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187
99. State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214
100. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188
101. State of U.P. v. Prahalad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 176
102. State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175
103. Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217
104. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236
105. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245
106. Tanvir Singh v. State of J&K, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253
107. Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242
108. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224
109. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162
110. Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200
111. Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256
112. Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193
113. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179
114. Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172
115. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160
116. Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215
117. Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 228