Supreme Court Monthly Digest- May 2022 With Nominal And Statute/Subject Wise Index

Advocate - Senior Advocate Designation - Instead of ten marks to be allocated to a counsel who has put in between ten to twenty years of practice, the marks be allocated commensurate with the standing of the person at the Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be allocated for every year of practice between ten to twenty years. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451

All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - Civil servants should maintain the highest ethical standards of integrity and honesty; political neutrality; fairness and impartiality in the discharge of duties, courtesy, accountability and transparency - Integrity, impartiality, neutrality, transparency and honesty are non-negotiable. Ethical standards necessarily have to be enforced and stringent action taken against the concerned officer whenever there is any breach of ethical standards as laid down in the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - Writ petition seeking to impose restrictions to prevent Civil Servants from contesting elections immediately after retirement or resignation from service, by imposing a "Cooling off Period" - Dismissed - It is not for this Court to decide whether or not there should be any rules/guidelines for a bureaucrat to contest elections - Whether there should be any "Cooling off Period" for civil servants for them to contest elections or not is best left to the concerned Legislature - The allegations of bureaucrats deviating from strict norms of political neutrality with a view to obtaining party tickets to contest elections, is vague, devoid of particulars and unsupported by any materials which could justify intervention of this Court. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

Arbitration - Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 - The Act is liable to be held unconstitutional on the ground of encroachment upon the judicial powers of the State - The Act has the effect of annulling the awards which have become "Rules of Court", is a transgression on the judicial functions of the State and therefore, violative of doctrine of "separation of powers". (Para 122, 127(iii)) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Arbitration Act, 1940 - The powers exercised by the court under the provisions of the 1940 Act are judicial powers and that the power to make an award "Rule of Court" is not a mechanical power. (Para 127 (ii), 113) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 21 - The word 'agree' in Section 21 of the Act refers to consensus ad idem between the parties who take a considered decision to forego their right of adjudication before a court where the suit is pending, and mutually agree to have the subject matter of the suit or part thereof adjudicated and decided by an arbitrator. (Para 17) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 11(5), 11(6) - Delay in appointment of arbitrators - If the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Arbitration Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If the Commercial disputes are not resolved at the earliest, not only it would affect the commercial relations between the parties but it would also affect economy of the country. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 11(5), 11(6) - Directions issued to High Courts to dispose pending applications within 6 months - Ensure that all pending applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and/or any other applications either for substitution of arbitrator and/or change of arbitrator, which are pending for more than one year from the date of filing, must be decided within six months from today. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - An application under section 11(6) shall be maintainable only in a case where there is a contract between the parties containing the arbitration agreement and the appointment procedure is prescribed and is agreed upon in writing. (Para 6.2) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6),14(1)(a) - Once the arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent and it was alleged that the mandate of the sole arbitrator stood terminated in view of section 14(1)(a), the application under section 11(6) to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator in view of section 14(1)(a) shall not be maintainable - The aggrieved party has to approach the concerned "court" as per sub­section (2) of section 14 of the Act. (Para 8) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12, 14(1)(a), 15(1)(a) - If the challenge to the arbitrator is made on any of the grounds mentioned in section 12 of the Act, the party aggrieved has to submit an appropriate application before the Arbitral Tribunal itself - Whenever there is a dispute and/or controversy that the mandate of the arbitrator is to be terminated on the grounds mentioned in section 14(1)(a), such a controversy/dispute has to be raised before the concerned "court" only and after the decision by the concerned "court" as defined under section 2(e) and ultimately it is held that the mandate of the arbitrator is terminated, thereafter, the arbitrator is to be substituted accordingly, that too, according to the rules that were applicable to the initial appointment of the arbitrator - So far as the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator and/or termination of the proceedings mentioned in other provisions like in section 15(1)(a) where he withdraws from office for any reason; or (b) by or pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the dispute need not be raised before the concerned court -The same procedure is required to be followed which was followed at the time of appointment of the sole arbitrator whose mandate is terminated and/or who is replaced. (Para 6.7) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 20 - The appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional 'seat' already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator. The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held - Once the jurisdictional 'seat' of arbitration is fixed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, then, without the express mutual consent of the parties to the arbitration, 'the seat' cannot be changed. (Para 29) BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.P. Singla Constructions, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7)(a) - If there is an agreement between the parties to the contrary, the Arbitral Tribunal would lose its discretion to award interest and will have to be guided by the agreement between the parties - In the absence of such an agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal would have a discretion to exercise its powers under clause (a) of sub­section (7) of Section 31- The discretion is wide enough. (Para 14-18) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 11(5) - Even in the absence of any arbitration agreement in writing between the parties, with consent the parties may refer the dispute for arbitration and appoint a sole arbitrator/arbitrators by mutual consent and parties may agree mutually on a procedure for appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators even in the absence of any written agreement. (Para 7.2) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 8 and 11 - Group of Companies doctrine - There is a clear need for having a re­look at the doctrinal ingredients concerning the group of companies doctrine - Whether the phrase 'claiming through or under' in Sections 8 and 11 could be interpreted to include 'Group of Companies' doctrine? Whether the 'Group of companies' doctrine as expounded by Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. (2013) 1 SCC 641 and subsequent judgments are valid in law? - Issues referred to a larger bench. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455

Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re­employed Pensioners) Order, 1986; Para 8 - On re­employment in the government service, an employee who was serving in the Indian Army/in the Armed Forces not entitled to his pay scales at par with his last drawn pay - The reference to the last drawn pay in the armed forces is only to ensure that the pay computed in the civil post in the manner envisaged in para 8 of CCS Order does not exceed the basic pay (including the deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) last drawn by the personnel in the armed forces. (Para 5-6) Union of India v. Anil Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513

CETSTAT judgments overruled - Some judgments relied upon by the assessee and the CESTAT have limited precedential value - the Apex Court had merely affirmed the ruling of CESTAT in these judgements without providing independent reasoning - Overruled Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-I; Computer Sciences Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax; SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. [Para 59] C.C. C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 23 Rule 3 and Order 43 Rule 1A - An aggrieved person against the compromise decree has a right to file an application before the Court which granted the decree - He has the right to avail either the remedy of appeal in terms of Order 43 Rule 1A CPC or by way of an application before the court granting decree. Vipan Aggarwal v. Raman Gandotra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 442

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 - Appeal against judgment of High Court that affirmed the Trial Court order setting aside the ex parte decree but held that the defendants cannot be permitted to file their written statement - Allowed - It should have been left to the Trial Court to consider the prayer of defendants whether to allow them to file written statement or not. Sudhir Ranjan Patra v Himansu Sekhar Srichandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 - When an ex­parte decree is set aside and the suit is restored to file, the defendants cannot be relegated to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit when he was placed ex­parte. He would be debarred from filing any written statement in the suit, but then he can participate in the hearing of the suit inasmuch cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff and address arguments. (Para 6) Sudhir Ranjan Patra v Himansu Sekhar Srichandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - At the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC only the averments and allegations in the application/plaint are to be considered and not the written 37 statement and/or reply to the application and/or the defence. (Para 12) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 1 - The time limit for filing of the written statement is not mandatory - Delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs. (Para 3-4) Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 1A (3) - To deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice - Trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself - Rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice. Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XIV Rule 2 - The plea of res judicata in appropriate cases may be determined as preliminary issue when it is neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law and fact - Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. (Para 20, 30) Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XIV Rule 2, Order XX Rule 5, Order XLI Rules 24 & 25 - To avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to record findings on all the issues. (Para 33) Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 - If evidence is recorded by the learned Trial Court on all the issues, it would facilitate the first Appellate Court to decide the questions of fact even by reformulating the issues - It is only when the first Appellate Court finds that there is no evidence led by the parties, the first Appellate Court can call upon the parties to lead evidence on such additional issues, either before the Appellate Court or before the Trial Court. (Para 32) Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 11 - Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 21 - Distinction between the scope and functions of an arbitral tribunal and a commissioner - For submission to arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement or an agreement in terms of Section 21 of the Act that the difference or dispute between the parties for which they intend to be determined in a quasi-judicial manner. Commissioners are appointed by the court. Appointment may be with consent of the parties, or even when there is objection to the appointment. Preexisting agreement or the requirement that the parties agree before the court, as is mandatory in case of arbitration, is not necessary when a court directs appointment of a commissioner. In the case of a reference to a commissioner, all that the parties expect from the commissioner is a valuation/ examination of the subject matter referred, which he would do according to his skill, knowledge and experience, which may be without taking any evidence or hearing argument. (Para 32) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 11 - We would like to introduce the principle of a 'facilitator' which a court may appoint, be it a commissioner or an expert, for a specific purpose and cause for ascertainment of a fact which may be even disputed. In some cases, the commissioner may even hear the parties and give his expert opinion based on the material or evidence produced by the parties before the commissioner. (Para 32) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 9,11 - The commissioners' reports are 'non-adjudicatory in nature', and the courts adjudicate upon the rights of the parties - It is only an opinion or noting, as the case may be with the details and/or statement to the court the actual state of affairs. Such a report does not automatically form part of the court's opinion, as the court has the power to confirm, vary or set aside the report or in a given case issue a new commission. (Para 33) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First Schedule - If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be non­cognizable. (Para 5.3) Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2) - The sentencing hearing contemplated under Section 235(2), is not confined merely to oral hearing but intended to afford a real opportunity to the prosecution as well as the accused, to place on record facts and material relating to various factors on the question of sentence and if interested by either side, to have evidence adduced to show mitigating circumstances to impose a lesser sentence or aggravating grounds to impose death penalty. (Para 205 -212) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 24 - Public Prosecutor - A public prosecutor occupies a statutory office of high regard. Rather than a part of the investigating agency, they are instead, an independent statutory authority who serve as officers to the court. The role of the public prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to conducting a fair trial, and not for a "thirst to reach the case in conviction". (Para 171 - 177) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Offering no explanation on incriminating circumstances mentioned above would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances. (Para 47) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - The 'crime test' and the 'criminal test' require to be followed before awarding capital sentence - Consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances with application of mind required. Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 407 - Fault or shortcoming on the part of the staff of the Subordinate Court and for that matter, any delay in compliance by the Court were hardly the reasons for the High Court to immediately adopt the course of transferring the matter. Nazma Naz v. Rukhsana Bano, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 532

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - No express executive power has been conferred on the Centre either under the Constitution or law made by the Parliament in relation to Section 302. In the absence of such specific conferment, it is the executive power of the State that extends with respect to Section 302, assuming that the subject-matter of Section 302 is covered by Entry 1 of List III. A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Remission or pre­mature release has to considered in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court - The appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments under Section 432(7) CrPC. (Para 13, 14) Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Remission Policy - The application for grant of pre­mature release will have to be considered on the basis of the policy which stood on the date of conviction. (Para 9) Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against Delhi High Court order granting bail to a man accused of kidnapping and murdering the 13-year-old son of a Delhi jeweler in 2014, whose body was found in a drain in East Delhi in November 2014 - Allowed - An important circumstance which should have, but has not been taken into consideration by the High Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. The release of the accused on bail, at this stage, would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The apprehension that the witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance. Mamta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 531

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled discussed. (Para 24-26) Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - High Court or Sessions Court have a wide discretion in deciding an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. However, the said discretion must be exercised after due application of the judicial mind and not in a routine manner - Considerations for bail discussed. (Para 13- 19) Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Posters saying "Bhaiya is back" was put up to celebrate the release of a rape-accused on bail - Bail set aside - Brazen conduct of the accused has evoked a bona fide fear in complainant's mind that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses. Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The circumstances in which power to quash an FIR could be exercised. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case" cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offences alleged. (Para 6.3) Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order in such matters. (Para 6.2) Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - The lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder - Even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the Court has still a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it, is enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution. (Para 28) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Order excluding period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation in Re: Cognizance of Extension of Limitation 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31 - Applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also. Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne v. Pyrotek India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 520

Companies Act, 1956; Section 10­F - Re­appraisal of entire evidence by the High Court is not permissible - Has to restrict its determination to the purported questions of law arising from the order of CLB. (Para 24) Mahima Datla v. Renuka Datla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Companies Act, 1956; Section 397 - An order could be made on application made under sub­section (1), if the Court is of the opinion that (i) the Company's affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive of any member or members, and; (ii) the facts would justify the making of a winding up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the Company should be wound up, and; (iii) the winding up order would unfairly prejudice the Petitioners - An application for relief can be brought by any member who complain that the 25 affairs of the Company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members. The intention of the legislature is that majority shareholders who oppress the minority shareholders and conduct the affairs of the company prejudicial to public interest may invoke the jurisdiction of CLB. (Para 39) Mahima Datla v. Renuka Datla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Companies Act, 2013; Section 196, Schedule V - No person shall be eligible to be a whole­time Director of a Company after attaining the age of 70 years unless such appointment is approved by a special resolution of the Company. (Para 35) Mahima Datla v. Renuka Datla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Constitution of India - Article 142 - In a catena of decisions of this Court, this power has been recognised and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Constitution of India - Judicial Interference in policy matters - APM Terminals B.V. v. Union of India and anr. - consistent view of the Court - a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest - provide such change in policy was guided by reason - in case of conflict between public interest and personal interest, public interest should prevail - when a policy is changed by the State, which is in the general public interest, such policy would prevail over the individual rights/interests - in the present case, the policy change was not only in the larger public interest but also in the interest of the respondents/original allottees of plots of land [Para 61 - 63 & 65] Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 536

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Entry 13 of List III of Seventh Schedule - The subject of arbitration is in the Concurrent List, the State can also make a law with regard to the same. The only requirement is that to validate such a law, it is necessary to reserve the same for consideration of the President of India and obtain his assent. When such an assent is obtained, the provisions of the State Law or Act so enacted would prevail in the State concerned, notwithstanding its repugnancy with an earlier Parliamentary enactment made on the subject. (Para 62, 127(i)) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - When an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of Section 438 CrPC. What has been observed and said in relation to Section 438 CrPC applies with more vigour to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 21) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Inter­play between the plea of legitimate expectation and Article 14 - For a decision to be non ­arbitrary, the reasonable/legitimate expectations of the claimant have to be considered. However, to decide whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context, is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. (Para 14)] State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 145(3), 239AA(3)(a) and Entry 41 of List II of Seventh Schedule - interpretation of the phrases: "in so far as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories" and "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution" as contained in Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution - Referred for an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution. (Para 8-10) Govt of NCT Delhi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - Non-exercise of the power by Governor under Article 161 is not immune from judicial review -Given petitions under Article 161 pertain to the liberty of individuals, inexplicable delay not on account of the prisoners is inexcusable as it contributes to adverse physical conditions and mental distress faced by a prisoner, especially when the State Cabinet has taken a decision to release the prisoner by granting him the benefit of remission / commutation of his sentence. (Para 20) A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters relating to commutation / remission of sentences under Article 161. (Para 19) A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated - Persons who are keen to not be vaccinated on account of personal beliefs or preferences, can avoid vaccination, without anyone physically compelling them to be vaccinated. However, if there is a likelihood of such individuals spreading the infection to other people or contributing to mutation of the virus or burdening of the public health infrastructure, thereby affecting communitarian health at large, protection of which is undoubtedly a legitimate State aim of paramount significance in this collective battle against the pandemic, the Government can regulate such public health concerns by imposing certain limitations on individual rights that are reasonable and proportionate to the object sought to be fulfilled. (Para 49, 89(iii) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Personal autonomy of an individual involves the right of an individual to determine how they should live their own life, which consequently encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health. (Para 49, 89(iii)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Rights of Sex Workers - Basic Protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children - Directions issued to States/UTs for conditions conducive to sex workers to live with dignity in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Police should not abuse them physically or verbally - Press Council of India to issue guidelines to media to protect their anonymity during raid and rescue operations - Various other directions issued. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Without health, the faculties of living have little meaning. (Para 5) Baiju K.G. v. Dr. V.P. Joy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21- Fair Trial - It must be emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 27) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - An order of the Registrar directing the registration of a document is amenable to a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution - The mere existence of the remedy available before a civil court, under Section 9 of the CPC to avoid the document or to seek a declaration in regard to its invalidity, will not divest a person, who complains that the order passed by Registrar for the registration of the document was contrary to statutory provisions, of the remedy which is available in the exercise of a court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 30) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Whether the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 applicable to an interim order of stay passed by High Court in writ proceedings (writ appeal) - The order of stay granted by the Division Bench in the High Court cannot be treated as having no force - This Court cannot be understood as having intended to apply the principle to the fact situation which is presented in this case. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Section 58 (1)(a)(iii & iv) - Writ petition under Article 227 maintainable against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a) (iv) of the 2019 Act - While granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (Para 11-14.1) Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 246 - Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Chapter III B - Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 - The moment the Parliament stepped in to codify the law relating to registration and regulation of NBFCs, by inserting certain provisions in Chapter III­B of the RBI Act, the same would cast a shadow on the applicability (even assuming it is applicable) of the provisions of the Kerala Act to NBFCs registered under the RBI Act and regulated by RBI - In cases of this nature, Article 246(1) would squarely apply. (Para 8, 8.3) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 246, 254 - Three important tests of inconsistency or repugnancy - (i) whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (ii) whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive Code in respect of the subject matter replacing the Act of the State legislature; and (iii) whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by State legislature occupy the same field. (Para 7.9) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - Repugnancy under Article 254 would arise only if both the Parliamentary law and the State law are referable to List­ III. Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial review of executive decisions based on expert opinion - Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. (Para 21) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Policy decisions - Court would be slow in interfering with matters of policy, especially those connected to public health. There is also no doubt that wide latitude is given to executive opinion which is based on expert advice. However, it does not mean that this Court will not look into cases where violation of fundamental rights is involved and the decision of the executive is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 25) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Mandamus will not be issued to command Legislature to enact a law, which it is competent to enact - It cannot even issue a Mandamus to the Government for enforcement of a Cabinet decision - When an administrative order confers rights or creates estoppel against the Government, that Mandamus can be issued to enforce the circular. Similarly a Mandamus may be issued to cancel an administrative order, which violates the rules of fairness. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 and 14 - Policy matters - Policy matters are never interfered with, unless patently arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32,226 - Judicial Review - Unless the Court is satisfied that the decision which has been taken by the authorities is without application of mind to relevant circumstances or was manifestly arbitrary, there would be no reason for the Court to interfere. (Para 13) Dr. R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 136, 225 and 227 - Even when a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is provided by a statute against the decision of a tribunal, the remedy under Article 226 or 227 before the High Court remains unextinguished. (Para 24) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 227, 136 - NCDRC can be regarded as a 'Tribunal' within the meaning of Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 12) Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 227, 136 - When the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court is provided, in that case, it would be in furtherance of the right of access to justice of the aggrieved party, to approach the concerned High Court at a lower cost, rather than a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 13) Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226 and 227 - The power of judicial review under Articles 226, 227, and 32 are part of the basic structure of our constitution and the same is inviolable. (Para 12) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

Constitution of India,1950; Article 243E, 243U - Constitutional Mandate to hold local body elections in time inviolable- Neither the State Election Commission nor the State Government or for that matter the State Legislature, including this Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can countenance dispensation to the contrary. (Para 5) Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463

Constitution of India; Article 226 - Where a party questions only the failure of the Registering Authority to perform his statutory duties in the course of the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform their duties within the bounds of law. (Para 53) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Constitution of India; Articles 14, 15(1), 341 and 342 - Furthermore, the duty to provide clarity and protection, generally speaking has to be consistent - i.e., in the case of one states' reorganization, the protection should not be greater than in the case of reorganization of another state. That would defeat the command of Articles 14 and 15 (1) (i.e., in the latter case, there can possibly be discrimination on the ground of place of birth). In my opinion, this duty stems from a co-joint reading of Part I (Articles 1 to 4), Articles 14, 15(1), 341, and 342 of the Constitution, and the overarching concern that the individual should not be worse off, due to disruption not of her or his making. The duty of Parliament in such cases, is a Constitutional obligation, to ensure that no one individual or group is disadvantaged. (Justice Bhat, Para 10) Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(g) - Insurance - Deficiency in Service - When the insured had produced the photocopy of certificate of registration and the registration particulars as provided by the RTO, solely on the ground that the original certificate of registration (which has been stolen) is not produced, non settlement of claim can be said to be deficiency in service. (Para 4) Gurmel Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Appeal against Madras High Court's order holding advocate guilty of Contempt and sentencing him to 2 weeks imprisonment as well as debarring him from practicing for a period of 1 year for obstructing the execution of a non-bailable warrant issued by the HC against him - Upheld - Appellant has no respect for the administration of justice. The finding of contempt, as well as the sentence cannot be regarded as disproportionate. P.R. Adikesavan v. Registrar General, High Court of Madras, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 530

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - It is not open to the Court in contempt jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings. Kangaro Industries v. Jaininder Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437

Contract Act, 1872; Sections 176 & 177 - Pledge, Pawnee & Pawnor -Contract Act does not conceive of sale of the pawn to self and consequently, the pawnor's right to redemption in terms of Section 177 of the Contract Act survives till 'actual sale' (Para 8.2) PTC India Financial Services Ltd v. Venkateswarlu Kari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Contract of Service or Contract for Cervice - Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - flexibility in regard to deciding the question of whether a contract is one for service or one of service - no one test of universal application can ever yield the correct result - it is a conglomerate of all applicable tests taken on the totality of the fact situation in a given case that would ultimately yield, particularly in a complex hybrid situation, whether the contract to be construed is a contract of service or a contract for service - depending on the fact situation of each case, all the aforesaid factors would not necessarily be relevant, or, if relevant, be given the same weight. [Para 41 & 56] C.C. C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 18 - The value attached to the confessional statement, while overriding the provisions of CrPC and the Evidence Act in terms of Section 18 of MCOCA, cannot be gainsaid and cannot be ignored. (Para 18) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(e) - The expression 'other advantage' cannot be read in a restrictive manner and is required to be given its full effect. The High Court has rightly said that there could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself. (Para 14.2-14.4) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(e) - Actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of organised crime, when undertaken by an individual singly or jointly as part of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Threat of violence or even intimidation or even coercion would fall within the mischief. (Para 14.1) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(d) - The matter of settlement because of cross-cases or a matter of acquittal because of the witnesses not turning up, could hardly be of any relevance so far as Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA is concerned - What is significant and pertinent is the involvement of the person concerned in the referred activity and filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance in the offence as predicated. Acquittal or discharge is of no significance. (Para 17.5) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(d) - The threshold requirement in terms of clause (d) is that of the activity/activities undertaken by the accused persons either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate, which involves a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more and in respect of which, more than one charge-sheets have been filed before the competent Court within 10 years and cognizance had been taken. (Para 17.1) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Copyright Act, 1957; Section 63 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First Schedule - Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non­bailable offence. (Para 7) Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Covid-19 - Vaccination - Adverse effects following immunization is crucial for creating awareness around vaccines and their efficacy, apart from being instrumental in further scientific studies around the pandemic- Union of India directed to facilitate the reporting of suspected adverse events by individuals and private doctors on a virtual platform and the reports so made shall be publicly accessible after being given unique identification numbers, without listing any personal or confidential data of the persons reporting. (Para 84, 89(viii)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Covid-19 - Vaccination - Cannot conclude that restricted emergency use approvals had been granted to COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in haste, without thorough review of the relevant data - Subject to the protection of privacy of individual subjects, with respect to ongoing clinical trials and trials that may be conducted subsequently for COVID-19 vaccines, all relevant data required to be published under the extant statutory regime must be made available to the public without undue delay. (Para 76, 89(vi)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Covid-19 - Vaccination policy - Current vaccination policy of the Union of India is informed by relevant considerations and cannot be said to be unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary - Contrasting scientific opinion coming forth from certain quarters to the effect that natural immunity offers better protection against COVID-19 is not pertinent for determination of the issue before us. (Para 56,89(iv)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

COVID-19 - Vaccine mandates - Not proportionate - No data has been placed by the Union of India or the States appearing before us, controverting the material placed by the Petitioner in the form of emerging scientific opinion which appears to indicate that the risk of transmission of the virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons. In light of this, restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed through various vaccine mandates by State Governments / Union Territories cannot be said to be proportionate. Till the infection rate remains low and any new development or research finding emerges which provides due justification to impose reasonable and proportionate restrictions on the rights of unvaccinated individuals, we suggest that all authorities in this country, including private organizations and educational institutions, review the relevant orders and instructions imposing restrictions on unvaccinated individuals in terms of access to public places, services and resources, if not already recalled. (Para 89(v)). Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Criminal Investigation - Test Identification Parade - TIPs should normally be conducted at the earliest possible time to eliminate the chance of accused being shown to witnesses before the identification parade, which might otherwise affect such witnesses' memory - There is no hard and fast rule that delay or failure in holding the TIP ipso facto renders the evidence inadmissible or unacceptable; it however, affects the credibility and weight attached to such identification.(Para 100) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Being related to the victim, by itself, is no reason at all to discredit the testimony of a witness. (Para 34) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles applicable to appreciation of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence discussed. [Referred to Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 et al.] (149-151) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The circumstances concerned "must or should be" established and not "may be" established - The accused "must be" and not merely "may be" guilty before a court can convict him. The conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures. The entire chain of circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. (Para 10) Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Criminal Trial - Death sentence imposed on accused in case of rape and murder of 8 year old commuted to that of imprisonment for life with the stipulation that he shall not be entitled to premature release or remission before undergoing actual imprisonment for a period of 30 years - The present case cannot be considered as one falling in the category of 'rarest of rare cases'. Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - Description of a witness as 'chance witness' cannot and will not by itself denude the admissibility or relevance of the evidence of such a witness if nothing was brought out to make his version suspicious and thereby unacceptable. (Para 37) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - DNA Reports - The need to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence - Being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case - This court has relied on DNA reports, in the past, where the guilt of an accused was sought to be established. Notably, the reliance was to corroborate. (Para 121) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Draft Criminal Rules of Practice, 2021 - The prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules. (Para 179) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Last seen theory – discussed. (Para 32-32.5) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - Last Seen Together - In absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "Last seen together", even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed. (Para 14-17) Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Criminal Trial - Sanction - The validity of sanction could always be determined by the Trial Court during the course of trial where sanctioning authority could be examined and the appellant will have sufficient opportunity to contest the same, including that of cross-examining the sanctioning authority. (Para 18.2) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - 1988 Road Rage Case - Sentence awarded to Navjot Singh Sidhu enhanced to one year imprisonment - When a 25 year old man, who was an international cricketer, assaults a man more than twice his age and inflicts, even with his bare hands, a severe blow on his (victim's) head, the unintended consequence of harm would still be properly attributable to him as it was reasonably foreseeable - The indulgence was not required to be shown at the stage of sentence by only imposing a sentence of fine and letting him go without any imposition of sentence. Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment - While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large - A long period had lapsed by the time the appeal was decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which was disproportionate and inadequate. (Para 25 -32) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Public opinion neither an objective circumstance relating to crime, nor the criminal, and the courts must exercise judicial restraint and play a balancing role. (Para 227) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - The evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone. However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more carefully. (Para 26) Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Criminal Trial - The omission of some of the prosecution witnesses to mention a particular fact, or corroborate something, which is deposed to by other witnesses, therefore, does not ipso facto favour an accused. What is important, however, is whether the omission to depose about a fact is so fundamental that the prosecution version becomes shaky and incredulous - unless it is shown that the omission to examine a witness, who had previously participated during the investigation and whose statement was recorded by the police, undermines the prosecution case, or impacts on it significantly, the foundation of the fact or facts which are sought to be proved, remains unshaken as long as that fact is deposed to or spoken about by other witnesses, whose testimonies are to be seen in their own terms. Therefore, the omission to examine the individuals left out, but who the prosecution claimed, had participated during the investigation, did not affect its case, as far as the circumstances held to have been established by it, are concerned. (Para 159-161) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - The recovery of the dead body, which was in a concealed condition from an unused and dilapidated building based on the disclosure statement of an accused is a crucial incriminating circumstance - Discovery of the body at the instance of the accused is a crucial circumstance, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. (Para 41) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - There would be nothing wrong in relying on the testimony of police officers if their evidence is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence. (Para 40) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - When other circumstances are available non-detection of blood group by itself would not be fatal. (Para 44) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

CRZ violations - Maradu Flats Demolition - The owners of the flats in the four buildings in Maradu, Kochi, which were demolished in 2020 for CRZ violations, are not entitled to interest on the refund payable to them by the builders. Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Death Sentence - Appellants' conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Death Sentence - Practical guidelines issued to collect mitigating circumstances of the accused at the trial stage- The trial court must elicit information from the accused and the state -The state, must - for an offence carrying capital punishment - at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused - State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused - Information regarding the accused's jail conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities the accused has involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities. (Para 213-217) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Depositories Act 1996 - Exercise of right on the part of the pawnee and consequent action on the part of the 'depository' recording the pawnee as the 'beneficial owner' is not 'actual sale'-Right to redemption under Section 177 of the Contract Act continues and can be exercised even after the pawnee has been registered and has acquired the status of 'beneficial owner'. The right of redemption would cease on the 'actual sale', that is, when the 'beneficial owner' sells the dematerialised securities to a third person. Once the 'actual sale' has been affected by the pawnee, the pawnor forfeits his right under Section 177 of the Contract Act to ask for redemption of the pawned goods. (10.4) PTC India Financial Services Ltd v. Venkateswarlu Kari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Depositories Act 1996 - Principle that pawner has right to redeem on failure of reasonable notice will not apply to pledge of shares - We, however, accept that the Depositories Act, by-laws and rules relating to sale of dematerialised securities would be gravely undermined in case the pawnor is entitled to redeem the dematerialised shares from the third party on the ground that reasonable notice, as postulated under Section 176 of the Contract Act, was not given to the pawnor. (10.5) PTC India Financial Services Ltd v. Venkateswarlu Kari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Depositories Act 1996 - Section 12 of the Depositories Act is not ex-facie inconsistent with pawnee and pawnor's contractual rights and obligations under the Contract Act and the common law. (Para 10.2) PTC India Financial Services Ltd v. Venkateswarlu Kari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Abuse of power is one of the criteria for testing whether a public body could resile from a prima facie legitimate expectation - If the government authority induced an expectation which was substantive, the upsetting of that expectation, through departure from the expected course of action in the absence of compelling public interest, would be so unfair, that it would amount to abuse of power. [Para 33] State of Bihar v. Shyama Nandan Mishra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - The doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application when the legislature has enacted the statute. Further, the legitimate expectation cannot prevail over a policy introduced by the Government, which does not suffer from any perversity, unfairness or unreasonableness or which does not violate any fundamental or other enforceable rights vested in the respondent. When the decision of public body is in conformity with law or is in public interest, the plea of legitimate expectation cannot be sustained. (Para 10-13) State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Where the substantive legitimate expectation is not ultra vires the power of the authority and the court is in a position to protect it, the State cannot be allowed to change course and belie the legitimate expectation - Regularity, Predictability, Certainty and Fairness are necessary concomitants of Government's action - Failure to keep commitment would permit the State's action to be interdicted. [Para 34] State of Bihar v. Shyama Nandan Mishra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449

Doctrine of Pith and Substance - When the legislative competence of a State Legislature is questioned on the ground that it encroaches upon the legislative competence of the Parliament, since some entries are bound to be overlapping, in such a situation, the doctrine of pith and substance has to be applied to determine as to which entry does a given piece of legislation relate to. Once it is so determined, any incidental trenching on the field reserved to the other legislature is of no consequence. The court has to look at the substance of the matter. The true character of the legislation has to be ascertained. Regard must be had to the enactment as a whole, to its main objects and to the scope and effect of its provision - Incidental and superficial encroachments are to be disregarded - The predominance of the Union List would not prevent the State Legislature from dealing with any matter with. (Para 71) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Duomatic Principle - Duomatic Principle applicable even in the Indian context - Strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts, if the same is consented by all members - Principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved - Fraud is a clear exception. (Para 26-29) Mahima Datla v. Renuka Datla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Easements Act, 1882; Section 52 - Licence - The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizen - They have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license - As a licensee, the plaintiffs have no right to stay in the accommodation allotted which is purely an approach to a human problem faced by the people in old age. (Para 23-26) Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 460

Education - NIOS shall endeavor to fix the examination centres, within a distance of 10 kilometers from the Accredited Institutions with which they are connected - It has duty to fix examination centres in a manner to enable students to appear in the examination with certainty and ease. Pragya Higher Secondary School v. National Institute of Open Schooling, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 535

Education - Private Medical Colleges - Capitation Fee - The management of private medical colleges are strictly prohibited from accepting payment of fees in cash, in order to avoid charging of capitation fee - Directions to curb capitation fee menace issued - A web-portal under the aegis of Supreme Court has to be set-up wherein any information about the private medical colleges charging capitation fees can be furnished by the students - While fixing fee, the Fee Fixation Committees of the States should take into account all the components of fee, leaving no scope for managements to charge any additional amounts apart from what has been prescribed by the fee fixation committee from time to time. (Para 13-15) Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust v. Committee for Fixation of Fee Structure Of Private Professional Colleges, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 501

Education - Punjab (Regulations of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 - Government Order/Notification stipulation that unaided Educational Institution shall upload income, expenditure account and balance sheet on its website - Ultra vires- It is clearly outside the scope of the authority bestowed on the competent authority. Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 518

Education - Punjab (Regulations of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 - Government Order/Notification stipulation that prohibits the unaided institutions from charging any kind of cost from the parents - Consistent with the legislative intent and mandate of the 2016 Act - The unaided institutions can charge only the disclosed fee structure amount from its students and no further. Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 518

Education - Punjab (Regulations of Fees of Unaided Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 - Government Order/Notification provision whereby penalty amount is enhanced in respect of unaided institutions - Unconstitutional and ultra vires - What should be the quantum of penalty amount or punishment, is a legislative policy. It must be left to the concerned legislature. It cannot be provided by way of an executive order. Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 518

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 2(8), 2(49), 9, 42 - Even an association of corporate bodies can establish a captive power plant. The only requirement would be that the said plant must be established primarily for their own use. (Para 16) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 478

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 9 - National Electricity Policy, 2005 - The provision with respect to establishing captive power plant has been made with a view to not only securing reliable, quality and cost­ effective power but also to facilitate creation of employment opportunities through speedy and efficient growth of industry - A liberal provision has been made in Section 9 of the said Act so as to promote establishment of captive power plants. (Para 21-23) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 478

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 45-AA - Once the statute has fixed the condition of pre-deposit before filing an appeal, such condition is required to be satisfied - Giving appellate authority a discretion to waive of the amount determined, is clearly not sustainable. (Para 8) Employees State Insurance Health Care v. Maruti Suzuki, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Endosulfan Tragedy - Contempt plea preferred by victims alleging failure on the part of State of Kerala to disburse 5 lakhs compensation - State's Chief Secretary to hold monthly meetings to undertake the process of identification of the victims of endosulfan, ensuring disbursement of compensation of Rs 5 lakhs and taking steps to ensure provision of medical facilities. Baiju K.G. v. Dr. V.P. Joy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Environmental Law - Adherence to the principle of sustainable development is a constitutional requirement- Precautionary Principle essential feature of the principle of 'Sustainable Development' - In case of a doubt, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest - Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm and that harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. (Para 15-18) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 467

Environmental Law - Supreme Court revoked the approval granted by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for doubling of existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa) - Assessment of the impact which the project would have on the environment, especially in the protected area and wildlife sanctuary taking into account all the major factors such as the impact on the habitat, species, climate, temperature etc. caused due to felling of trees (not only for the laying of railway tracks but also for the secondary works such as setting up machinery, disposal of waste, and putting in place various mitigation measures etc.), movement of trains, human-wildlife interactions would have to be strictly undertaken before the project is considered by the NBWL. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 467

Estoppel - There can be no estoppel against a statute - Plea of promissory estoppel would stand negated when the mandate of a statute is followed. (Para 25-29) State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 30 - Extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession - The extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused. (Para 11-12) Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32(1) - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 306 - Dying Declaration - In some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act , subject to meeting certain necessary pre­conditions (1) That her cause of death must come into question in the matter - For instance, matters where along with the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has also charged the accused under Sections 302, 306 or 304B of the IPC - As long as the cause of her death has come into question, whether the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility. (2) Prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death. How far back the evidence can be, and how connected the evidence is to the cause of death of the deceased would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. No specific straitjacket formula or rule can be given with respect to this. Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32(1) - Test for Admissibility - The cause of death must come into question in that case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the purpose for which such evidence is being sought to be admitted should be a part of the 'circumstances of the transaction' relating to the death - The test is not that the evidence to be admitted should directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death of the individual, or that the charge relating to death could not be proved. (Para 17) Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65B(4) - Certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement for production of electronic evidence - Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice. (Para 20-21) Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - Doctrine of Res Gestae - The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" that it becomes relevant by itself. A conduct of the accused after the incident may become admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, though not in issue, if it is so connected with the fact in issue. (Para 36) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Fair Investigation - Supreme Court criticises Madras High Court for keeping preliminary enquiry report in sealed cover without sharing with the accused- "When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover. (Para 28) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Fair investigation - The principles of natural justice demanded that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to defend his case based on the material that had exonerated him initially, which was originally accepted by the State. (Para 22) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Fair Price Shop - Supreme Court upheld cancelation of the declaration of Fair Price Shop vacancies by State of West Bengal in view of the implementation of National Food Security Act. State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527

Finance Act 1994 - Service Tax - Secondment Agreement - Indian company employing services on employees seconded from overseas group companies can be said to be service recepient of manpower supply- Liable for service tax-The assessee was, for the relevant period, service recipient of the overseas group company concerned, which can be said to have provided manpower supply service, or a taxable service, for the two different periods in question (in relation to which show cause notices were issued). (Para 61) C.C. C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Finance Act, 1994; Section 65(44) - excludes from the sweep of service tax "a provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment." - while the control (over performance of the seconded employees' work) and the right to ask them to return, if their functioning is not as is desired, is with the assessee, the fact remains that their overseas employer in relation to its business, deploys them to the assessee, on secondment. Secondly, the overseas employer- for whatever reason, pays them their salaries - their terms of employment, even during the secondment, are in accord with the policy of the overseas company, who is their employer - upon the end of the period of secondment, they return to their original places, to await deployment or extension of secondment. [Para 45 & 57] C.C. C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526

General Clauses Act, 1897; Section 21 - Assuming that the State was having power to amend, vary or rescind the notification, in that case also such power can be exercised in a like manner, namely after following the procedure, which was followed while issuing the original notification. (Para 9) Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Goa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Goods and Services Tax (GST) - The recommendations of the GST council are not binding on the Union and the State Governments. The Parliament intended that the recommendations of the GST Council will have persuasive value. Both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can equally legislate on matters of Goods and Service Tax. Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500

Hindu Law - Hindu woman's right to maintenance is a tangible right against the property which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and the wife. Such right was recognized and enjoined under the Shastric Hindu Law - It was not and is not an empty formality or an illusory claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity. (Para 14, 20) Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14(1) - The words "possessed by" used in Section 14(1) are of the widest possible amplitude and include the state of owning a property, even though the Hindu woman is not in actual or physical possession of the same - The possession of the widow, must be under some vestige of a claim, right or title, because the section does not contemplate the possession of any rank trespasser without any right or title. (Para 14) Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14(1) - Where a Hindu widow is found to be in exclusive settled legal possession of the HUF property, that itself would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance, more particularly when the surviving co-parcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance. (Para 20) Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 148, 148A - Finance Act, 2021 - (i) The respective impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The respective assessing officers shall within thirty days from today provide to the assessees the information and material relied upon by the Revenue so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a) be dispensed with as a one time measure vis­à­vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass an order in terms of section 148A(d) after following the due procedure as required under section 148A(b) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; (iv) All the defences which may be available to the assessee under section 149 and/or which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law and whatever rights are available to the Assessing Officer under the Finance Act, 2021 are kept open and/or shall continue to be available and; (v) The present order shall substitute/modify respective judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts quashing the similar notices issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act irrespective of whether they have been assailed before this Court or not - The present order shall govern, not only the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but shall also be made applicable in respect of the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts across the country and therefore the present order shall be applicable to pan India. (Para 8) Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 5(8), 5(7) - A liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate would be a "financial debt" - The holder of the Recovery Certificate would be a financial creditor and would be entitled to initiate CIRP, if initiated within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate - Affirmed the view taken in Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) 10 SCC 330. (Para 84-85) Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd. v. A. Balakrishna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - The provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are not alien to and are applicable to proceedings under the IBC; and (ii) An acknowledgement in a balance sheet without a qualification can furnish a legitimate basis for determining as to whether the period of limitation would stand extended, so long as the acknowledgement was within a period of three years from the original date of default. (Para 13) State Bank of India v. Krishidhan Seeds, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - NOIDA is an operational creditor under the provisions of the IBC Code. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Anand Sonbhadra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 491

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14, 238 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - After the CIRP is initiated, all actions including any action under the SARFAESI Act to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest are prohibited. (Para 24, 35) Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14, 60(6) - Section 60(6) does contemplate exclusion of the entire period during which the moratorium was in force in respect of corporate debtor in regard to a proceeding as contemplated therein at the hands of the corporate debtor - Present an order of Moratorium under Section 14, the entire period of the Moratorium is liable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even in a suit or an application by a corporate debtor. (Para 25-28) New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 469

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 238 - IBC is a complete Code in itself - The provisions of the IBC would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. (Para 25-27) Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 61 - An appeal against the order of NCLT shall be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order was passed by the NCLT. The Appellate Tribunal has the power to extend the period of limitation by another 15 days. Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. V. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 472

Insurance - Insurance companies refusing claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds - While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control. (Para 4.1) Gurmel Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506

Insurance Law - Burden is on the insurer to show case falls within the purview of exclusion clause- In case of ambiguity, benefit goes to the insured. (Para 12) Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Insurance Law - Double Insurance - where an entity seeks to cover risks for the same or similar incidents through two different - overlapping policies - two or more insurers must have insured the same assured in respect of the same risk on the same interest in the same subject-matter - once the first insurer has paid a complete indemnity to the assured, the second insurer would be entitled to decline liability - in the case of specific risks, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc., the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance. (Para 46, 47) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 487

Insurance Law - Exclusion of liability in insurance policies - as a matter of general principle, it is well established that if one party, otherwise liable, wishes to exclude or limit his liability to the other party, he must do so in clear words; and that the contract should be given the meaning it would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which is reasonably available to the person or class of persons to whom the document is addressed. (Para 19) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 487

Insurance Law - When the policy itself defines the acts of terrorism in the Exclusion Clause, the terms of the policy being a concluded contract will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, the parties cannot rely upon the definitions of 'terrorism' in various penal statutes since the Exclusion Clause contains an exhaustive definition of acts of terrorism. (Para 13) Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Interpretation of Statutes - All the provisions in the Statute have to be construed in context with each other and no provision can be read in isolation - The provisions of a statue ought to be interpreted in such a manner which would advance the object and purpose of the enactment. (Para 39-41) Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd. v. A. Balakrishna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Interpretation of Statutes - Courts would not indulge in interpretation of a report of a body and when there is better material in the form of the Act itself available for interpretation. (Para 18) New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 469

Interpretation of Statutes - Each and every word and each and every phrase mentioned in the provision will have to be given effect to. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. (Para 21) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Interpretation of Statutes - Golden rule of interpretation discussed - If the words of a statute are not ambiguous, the scope of interpretation dwindles. (Para 19-23) New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 469

Interpretation of Statutes - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - the provisions of MCOCA need to be strictly construed and for their application, an unlawful activity has to fall within the periphery of organised crime. (Para 12-12.3) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Interpretation of Statutes - Penal Statutes - The rule of strict construction of a penal statute or a special penal statute is not intended to put all the provisions in such a tight iron cast that they become practically unworkable, and thereby, the entire purpose of the law is defeated. (Para 12.4-12.6) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Interpretation of Statutes - Principles that govern the interpretation to be given to proviso in the context of main provision discussed. (Para 50) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Interpretation of Statutes - The interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the Act, has to be preferred. (Para 24) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 478

Interpretation of Statutes - When the language of a statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, it is not permissible for the Court to add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast legislation. (Para 75) Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd. v. A. Balakrishna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Judicial Appointments - Selection to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Bihar - Decision of Bihar Public Service Commission to reject the applications of 8 candidates for not submitting originals of the certificates at the time of interview set aside - The rejection of the candidates was improper, unjustified and not warranted - 8 appellants who were duly qualified and duly selected have been deprived of their appointment as Judicial Officers. Aarav Jain v. Bihar Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Judicial Misconduct - Showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct. The extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration. It is often said that "the public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water". A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law. As often quoted, a judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. (Para 15) Muzaffar Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Legal Services Act, 1987; Section 22C, 22D - Permanent Lok Adalat has adjudicatory functions and is empowered to decide the dispute between the parties on merits - Conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA Act are mandatory in nature - Even if the opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to follow the step-by-step procedure - Main goal is conciliation and settlement of disputes in relation to public utilities, with a decision on merits always being the last resort. (Para 26-28) Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Legal Services Act, 1987; Sections 19 - 22E - Two different types of Lok Adalats - (1) Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the LSA Act, having no adjudicatory power, which can only conduct conciliatory proceedings (2) Permanent Lok Adalat, established under Section 22-B(1) of the LSA Act in respect of public utility services, which can carry out both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions, subject to the procedure to be followed under Section 22-C of the LSA Act. (Para 28-31) Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Legal Services Act,1987; Sections 19 - 22E - Similarities between Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats - (i) they can both attempt conciliation proceedings with the parties before them, and can pass awards recording the terms of settlement agreed upon by the parties (Section 20(3) and 22- C(7)); (ii) in doing do, they are both bound by principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles (Section 20(4) and 22-D); and (iii) their awards, deemed to be decrees of courts, will be final and cannot be challenged in an appeal (Section 21 and 22-E). - Permanent Lok Adalat is limited to disputes regarding public utility services, crucially, its powers are wider than the Lok Adalat in many respects. (Para 21- 22) Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Local Body Elections - Ongoing activity of delimitation or formation of ward cannot be a legitimate ground to be set forth by any authority much less the State Election Commission - to not discharge its constitutional obligation in notifying the election programme at the opportune time and to ensure that the elected body is installed before the expiry of 5 (five) years term of the outgoing elected body. (Para 11) Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463

Marine Policy - Marine Insurance Act, 1963; Section 4 - A contract of marine insurance may, by its express terms, or by usage of trade, be extended so as to protect the assured against losses on inland waters or on any land risk which may be incidental to any sea voyage - warehouse risks, combined with voyage and other marine risks, are considered as part of marine insurance policies in India. (Para 19) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 487

Medical Negligence - In the proceedings for damages due to professional negligence, the question of intention does not arise. (Para 29) Harnek Singh v. Gurmit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511

Medical Negligence - Opinion and findings of the MCI regarding the professional conduct of a doctor have great relevance while considering claim for compensation on the basis of medical negligence. (Para 35) Harnek Singh v. Gurmit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 - Supreme Court lifts curbs on iron sale and export from mines in Karnataka - Relaxes the directions issued in 2011. Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509

Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Section 10 - Only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected - An arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation; a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless or inadvertent mistake or omission unintentionally made. (Para 7.1-7.2) Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Goa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Section 3-5, 10 - Errata Notification dated 14.07.2016 issued by the State of Goa modifying/correcting its earlier notification dated 23/24.05.2016 by which it fixed the rates of minimum wages in various sectors - Wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - The minimum wages were revised and determined even after consultation with the Minimum Wage Advisory Board as required under Section 5 of the Act, 1948. Therefore, once there was no mistake, the same could not have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Goa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Municipalities Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 (Chhattisgarh); Rule 7 - Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 - A Shiksha Karmi cannot claim parity in pay-scale with that of Municipal teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work - They are governed by the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 under which they were appointed, are entitled to pay-scales under the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 only. (Para 7) Dr. K.M. Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 512

National Food Security Act, 2013 - There is a paradigm shift in addressing the problem of food security from the current welfare approach to a right based approach. The Act confers legal right on the eligible beneficiaries to get the essential commodities through fair price shops at a highly subsidized price. The Act also envisages reforms necessary for distribution of essential commodities to the ration card holders - The Act is a social welfare legislation and its provisions are mandatory. (Para 15-20) State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Establishment of NGT - The role of the NGT was not simply adjudicatory, but it also had the equally vital role which is preventive, ameliorative, or of the remedial category. (Para 6-10) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 14 and 22 - NGT under Section 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (Para 38(A), 12-15) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 22 - The remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India - It cannot be seen as denial of access to justice to the litigants in the field of environmental law. (Para 38(B), 24-31) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 3 - Establishment of NGT - Constitutional validity upheld - Section 3 of the NGT Act is not a case of excessive delegation of power to the Central Government. (Para 38(C), 32-37) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 3, 4 - The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per Page 37 of 37 exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State - Prayer for relocating the Bhopal NGT to Jabalpur is unmerited and is rejected. (Para 38(D), 16-23) Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495

National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021; Regulations 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) - National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021; Schedule ­II 2(a) and 2(c)(i) - Constitutional validity upheld - NMC has the power to frame the Regulations - Regulations not arbitrary - Not necessary for the NMC and the Central Government to recognise foreign medical degrees of a lesser duration - The prescription of an internship for a minimum duration of 12 months in the same foreign medical institution cannot also be said to be a duplication of internships. Aravinth R.A. v. Secretary to Government of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 473

NEET-PG - Plea to postpone NEET-PG 2022 scheduled for May 21 rejected - Postponement will create chaos and uncertainty and will impact patient care and will cause prejudice to over 2 lakh students who have prepared. Dr. R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Expeditious disposal of cases - Establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in 5 districts of 5 states with the highest pendency (namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh) directed - Guidelines covering the pilot study issued. In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - The burden is on the prosecution to show that the person prosecuted was in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. (Para 7) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - Vicarious liability in the criminal law in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act cannot be fastened because of the civil liability - Vicarious liability arises only when the company or firm commits the offence as the primary offender - Unless the company or firm has committed the offence as a principal accused, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) or (2) would not be liable and convicted as vicariously liable. (Para 11-14) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141(1) Proviso - The onus to satisfy the requirements and take benefit of the proviso is on the accused. Still, it does not displace or extricate the initial onus and burden on the prosecution to first establish the requirements of sub-section (1) to Section 141 of the NI Act. (Para 7) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141(2) - The onus under Section 141(2) of the NI Act is on the prosecution and not on the person being prosecuted - Sub-section (2) to Section 141 of the NI Act does not state that the persons enumerated, can be prosecuted and punished merely because of their status or position as a director, manager, secretary or any other officer, unless the offence in question was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on their part. (Para 8) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Newspaper Reports - Courts cannot take judicial notice of facts stated in a news item published in a newspaper. A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence, unless proved by the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. (Para 70) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Penal Code, 1860; Section 124A - Sedition - All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused - If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. The Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India - We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration. (Para 8) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Section 124A - Sedition -Centre's affidavit that it has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provision - it is clear that the Union of India agrees with the prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law. (Para 5) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Section 285 - Essential requirement of Section 285 of IPC was that the accused must have done something with fire or any combustible matter in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - In order to convict an accused under Section 302, the court is required to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved the factum of homicidal death. (Para 8) Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304A - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case - For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 - Even though any harm might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must be attached if the person suffers a grievous hurt or dies as a result thereof. (Para 32) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 - The hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same. This may be understood where a blow may be given either by a physically fit person or to a more aged person. (Para 24) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405, 406 - The sine qua non for attracting the provision is the entrustment of the property with the accused persons. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - To make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. (Para 8) Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 416, 420 - Essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are deception on the part of the accused or dishonest inducement by them, resulting in any person delivering any property to such accused or alteration or destruction of whole or any part of valuable security. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Possession - Three types of possession - One as that of an owner, including co-owners; second as a tenant, when a right is created in the property; and thirdly permissive possession, the possession which otherwise would be illegal or that of as a trespasser. (Para 12) Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 460

Precedent - Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved. The generality of the expressions which are found in a judgment cannot be considered to be intended to be exposition of the whole law. They will have to be governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. (Para 31) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Precedent - Per Incuriam - "Incuria" literally means "carelessness". A decision or judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the Court. It can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co­equal or larger Bench. (Para 67) Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd. v. A. Balakrishna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Precedent - Ratio Decidendi - Ratio decidendi is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. It has been held that one additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. (Para 33) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Sections 3, 4 - Even in cases of PMLA, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities - The allegation must be proved beyond 20 reasonable doubt in the Court -It is incumbent upon the Court to look into the allegation and the material collected in support thereto and to find out whether the prima facie offence is made out. Unless the allegations are substantiated by the authorities and proved against a person in the court of law, the person is innocent. (Para 18) J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Principle of Restitution - An unsuccessful litigant who had the benefit of an interim order in his favour cannot encash or take advantage of the same - Restitutionary jurisdiction is inherent in every court, to neutralise the advantage of litigation. (Para 15 - 16) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 5, 6 - Conviction of accused set aside after noticing that he married the victim and has two children - Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12 - There should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed vis-à-vis allegation of domestic violence. However, it is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting - Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. (Para 52, 42-44) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12 - Not mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order- Even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order - The Magistrate is obliged to take into consideration any Domestic Incident Report received by him when the same has been filed from the Protection Officer or the service provider in a case where the application is made to the Magistrate on behalf of the aggrieved person through a Protection Officer or a service provider. (Para 52, 45-51) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 17(1) - Every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in the shared household even in the absence of any act of domestic violence by the respondent - She cannot be evicted, excluded or thrown out from such a household even in the absence of there being any form of domestic violence - She can accordingly enforce her right under Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act (Para 25-30,40) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 17,19 - It is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief. If a woman has the right to reside in a shared household, she can accordingly enforce her right under Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act. If a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek relief under the provisions of the D.V. Act including her right to live or reside in the shared household under Section 17 read with Section 19 of the D.V. Act. (Para 52, 22-41) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Sections 2(f), 17 - The expression 'joint family' cannot be understood as understood in Hindu Law - The expression 'family members living together as a joint family', means the members living jointly as a family. In such an interpretation, even a girl child/children who is/are cared for as foster children also have a right to live in a shared household and are conferred with the right under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. When such a girl child or woman becomes an aggrieved person, the protection of Section 17(2) comes into play. (Para 36) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Public Employment - Direct Recruitment - A candidate who has applied does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end. Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right. This is, however, different, from holding that the employer is free to act in an arbitrary manner. Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 514

Registration Act, 1908 - If the Registering Officer under the Act is construed as performing only a mechanical role without any independent mind of his own, then even Government properties may be sold and the documents registered by unscrupulous persons driving the parties to go to civil court. Such an interpretation may not advance the cause of justice. Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908 - There is and there can be no dispute about the fact that while the Registering Officer under the Registration Act, 1908, may not be competent to examine whether the executant of a document has any right, title or interest over the property which is the subject matter of the document presented for registration, he is obliged to strictly comply with the mandate of law contained in the various provisions of the Act. (Para 11) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 & 33 - Authentication of PoA does not mean registration - A careful look at Sections 32 and 33 will show that while speaking about PoA, these provisions do not use the word "registration". While Section 32(c) uses the words "executed and authenticated", Section 33(1) uses the words "recognised" and "authenticated". Therefore it is clear that the word "authenticated" is not to be understood to be the same as "registered. (Para 18, 20) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32(c) - In cases where a document is presented for registration by the agent, (i) of the executant; or (ii) of the claimant; or (iii) of the representative or assign of the executant or claimant, the same cannot be accepted for registration unless the agent is duly authorized by a PoA executed and authenticated in the manner provided in the Act. (Para 16) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908; Section 34 - Section 34(3)(c) imposes an obligation on the Registering Officer to satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent. (Para 29) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908; Section 35 - The "execution" of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document - In a situation where an individual admits their signature on a document but denies its execution, the Sub-Registrar is bound to refuse registration in accordance with Sections 35(3)(a). (Para 57, 64) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462

Registration Act, 1908; Section 35, 73, 74 - While the Sub-Registrar under Section 35(3)(a) has to mandatorily refuse registration when the execution of a document is denied by the person purported to have executed the document, the Registrar is entrusted with the power to conduct an enquiry on an application under Section 73 by following the procedure under Section 74. (Para 35) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462

Registration Act, 1908; Section 72 - If a person by whom the document is purported to be executed denies its execution and registration is refused on those grounds, an appeal against the order of the Sub-Registrar denying execution would not be maintainable under Section 72 of the Registration Act. (Para 33) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462

Registration Act, 1908; Section 72, 73 - Mis-labelling of an application under Section 73 as an appeal under Section 72 would by itself not vitiate the proceedings before the Registrar. (Para 38) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462

Reorganization Act 2000 (Bihar); Section 73 - Employees who opt for service under a successor State after reorganization, their existing service conditions would not be varied to their disadvantage and would stand protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act. Further, subject to the condition that such person would not be entitled to claim the benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States, such employees would be entitled to claim not only the benefit of reservation in the service of the successor State to which they had opted and were allocated, but they would also be entitled to participate in any subsequent open competition with the benefit of reservation. (Justice Lalit, Para 17) Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Chapter III B - Chapter III­B of the RBI Act provides a supervisory role for the RBI to oversee the functioning of NBFCs, from the time of their birth (by way of registration) till the time of their commercial death (by way of winding up), all activities of NBFCs automatically come under the scanner of RBI. (Para 6.19, 7) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Chapter III B - Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958- Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 - The Kerala Act and the Gujarat Act will have no application to NBFCs registered under the RBI Act and regulated by RBI - Though the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act and the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act not examined, the principles of law laid down herein, would apply equally to these State enactments also. (Para 11.2)) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 45JA(1) - The words "relating to" appearing in Section 45­JA(1) can be taken to restrict the power of RBI to give directions, only in relation to the matters mentioned after the words "relating to" - The items mentioned after the words "relating to" can only be taken to be illustrative and not exhaustive. (Para 7.5-7.77) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 45L(1)(b) - Power upon the RBI to give directions to NBFCs "relating to the conduct of business by them" - To say that RBI has no power in respect of such an important aspect such as the rate of interest chargeable on the loans, may not be correct. (Para 7.8) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Chapter III of the Act incorporates the 'Duties of Appropriate Government, Local Authority and Parents'. Chapter IV, adopting the same rigour imposes 'Responsibilities of the Schools and Teachers'. This significant feature, imposing duties is over and above the Right to Free and Compulsory Education of every child provided in Chapter II of the Act. It is also the duty of the Constitutional Courts to recognize and interpret these Articles in the same spirit and give effect to the provisions of the Act. (Para 4.2) Pragya Higher Secondary School v. National Institute of Open Schooling, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 535

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Two conditions to be established for acquisition proceedings to lapse - possession not taken and/or compensation not paid - Purchaser has no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings - Since the original land owner never filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the purchaser cannot seek the relief which was not available even to the original land owner. [Para 29, 43, 37] Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 11 - In a case where on the date of commencement of RFCTLARR Act, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of 2013 Act and they shall be entitled to the compensation only under the 1894 Act - The landowners cannot be permitted to take advantage of the interim order obtained by them due to which the Authority could not declare the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and thereafter contend that in that view of the matter, he/they shall be paid the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, under which a higher compensation will be available to them on determination of the compensation under the Act, 2013. (Para 16-17) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Observations made in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 summarized - These observations would be aptly applicable while interpreting and considering Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. (Para 12-14) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Secondment Agreements - explained - Employees of overseas entities are deputed to the host entity (Indian associate) on the latter's request to meet its specific needs and requirements of the Indian associate - during the arrangement, the secondees work under the control and supervision of the Indian company and in relation to the work responsibilities of the Indian affiliate - social security laws of the home country (of the secondees) and business considerations result in payroll retention and salary payment by the foreign entity, which is claimed as reimbursement from the host entity - in the event the overseas entity is treated as the employer, the arrangement would be treated as service by the overseas entity and taxed. [Para 34] C.C. C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd.,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rules 8, 9 - The sale would be complete only when the auction purchaser makes the entire payment and the authorised officer, exercising the power of sale, shall issue a certificate of sale of the property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to the said Rules - The sale certificate does not require registration and the sale process is complete on issuance of the sale certificate. (Para 32-33) Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Service Law - Appointment to senior positions through limited departmental competitive examinations is one through promotion channel - In order to encourage meritorious candidates who may be comparatively junior in service, a window of opportunity is opened through limited departmental examination. Those who pass the examination are entitled to have an accelerated promotion. This process does not change the character of movement to the higher post and it continues to be a promotional channel. (Justice Lalit, Para 20) Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Service Law - Compassionate Appointments - The authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications. (Para 9) Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522

Service Law - If the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not 6 because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered - if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess. Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438

Service Law - Madhya Pradesh - Teachers in govt aided private educational institutions entitled to supernnuation age of 65 years. Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Service Law - Mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service - Mere suppression of material / false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee / recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen - The effect of suppression of material / false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance / suitability of the employee into service - The person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441

Service Law - Public Servants - Conditions of service of a public servant, including matters of promotion and seniority are governed by the extant rules - The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that, "the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules", does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under part XIV of the Constitution - The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services. (Para 10, 37.3) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502

Service Law - Rejection of candidature of a candidate who applied to post of constable upheld - An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. State of Rajasthan v. Chetan Jeff, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Service Law - Suppression of material fact by candidate in respect of his criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application Form - Principles discussed. (Para 6-7) State of Rajasthan v. Chetan Jeff, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 483

Special Relief Act, 1963; Section 28 - A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on the passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains control over the decree even after the decree has been passed. Section 28 not only permits the judgment ­debtors to seek rescission of the contract but also permits extension of time by the court to pay the amount. The power under this section is discretionary and the court has to pass an order as the justice of the case may require. (Para 11) Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar v. Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Special Relief Act, 1963; Section 28 - Consent Decrees - Time for payment of sale consideration may be extended even in a consent decree. Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar v. Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Stamp Act, 1958 (Maharashtra) - Court or a Tribunal cannot impound an insufficiently stamped document unless and until the same is produced on record before it. Widescreen Holdings v. Religare Finvest, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 435

State Reorginzation - Parliament must provide clarity on reservation benefits in successor state - In my opinion, given that determination of whether a community or caste has to be notified as Scheduled Caste, or Tribe, is in relation to a state or union territory (i.e., it is primarily people-centric having regard to the existing geo-political unit), and when a determination is so made that a particular community belongs to such state, in the event of re-organization, then, Parliament has a duty to provide clarity, by way of express provision- Given that states reorganizations occur as a consequence of political demands, or as an articulation of regional aspirations, there is no agency of the individual (i.e., members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe com- munities) in such eventuality. There is, consequently, an obligation on the part of Parliament, to provide clarity about the kind of protection, regarding the status of such individuals forced to choose one among the newly reorganized states, and ensure that they are not worse off as a result of reorganization (Justice Ravindra Bhat, Para 10) Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order IV Rule 7(b)(i) - If the Vakalatnama is executed in presence of the Advocate­ on­ Record himself, it is his duty to certify that the execution was made in his presence. This certification is not an empty formality. If he knows the litigant personally, he can certify the execution. If he does not personally know the litigant, he must verify the identity of the person signing the Vakalatnama from the documents such as Aadhaar or PAN card. (Para 14) Suresh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order IV Rule 7(b)(ii) - If the client has not signed the Vakalatnama in his presence, the AOR must ensure that it bears his endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7- It is not an empty formality and therefore, it is the duty of AORs to ensure that due compliance is made with the said requirement. (Para 14) Suresh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490

Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 - All material must be placed in advance before the SCSC. It must be emphasized that the SCSC, which is chaired by a Judge of the Supreme Court also consists of two Secretaries of the Union Government. A comprehensive exercise is conducted by the Committee, inter alia, involving calling for inputs from the IB, verifying the record of each candidate and conducting personal interaction. Hence, all such inputs, as are available with the Government, must be placed before the SCSC in advance. In an exceptional situation, where certain material comes to light after the submission of the recommendations, that must also be drawn to the attention of the SCSC so as to enable it to consider whether any modification of its recommendations is necessary. (Para 12) Advocate Association Bengaluru v. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 524

Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 - Centre must place subsequent materials collected about member recommended by the Search Cum Selection Committee before the SCSC - the candidates who are recommended by the SCSC are those who had been cleared by the IB after verifying their credentials, integrity, character and other relevant aspects. Evidently, many of the comments which are contained in the feedback column are of a subjective nature without any disclosure of underlying material. This would substantially detract from the fairness of the process. If, in an exceptional case, subsequent to the formulation and submission of recommendations of the SCSC, any tangible material comes to the knowledge of the competent authority, it is only proper and appropriate, as the Attorney General submits, that such material should be placed before the SCSC. We are in agreement with the submission of the Attorney General that as a general practice, all inputs bearing on the candidature of each prospective applicant under consideration, whether the inputs emanate from the IB or from any other source, ought to be placed by the Union Government on the record of the SCSC in advance, before the recommendations are formulated. (Para 12) Advocate Association Bengaluru v. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 524

Words and Phrases - "Include" - When the word "include" is used in interpretation clauses, the effect would be to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute. Such interpretation clause is to be so used that those words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things, as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. In such a situation, there would be no warrant or justification in giving the restricted meaning to the provision. (Para 47) Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd. v. A. Balakrishna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Words and Phrases - Interest - The compensation fixed by agreement or allowed by law for the use or detention of money, or for the loss of money by one who is entitled to its use; especially, the amount owed to a lender in return for the use of the borrowed money. (Para 10-12) Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 485

2022 LiveLaw (SC) May Monthly Nominal Index (434 to 536)

1. A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494
2. Aarav Jain v. Bihar Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 521
3. Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516
4. Advocate Association Bengaluru v. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 524
5. Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434
6. Aravinth R.A. v. Secretary to Government of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 473
7. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440
8. Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445
9. Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne v. Pyrotek India Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 520
10. Baiju K.G. v. Dr. V.P. Joy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517
11. BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.P. Singla Constructions, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493
12. Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465
13. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525
14. C.C. C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526
15. Canara Bank v. G.S. Jayarama, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499
16. Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529
17. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 478
18. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455
19. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452
20. Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476
21. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477
22. Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457
23. Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 446
24. Dr. K.M. Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 512
25. Dr. R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486
26. Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr. Vinay Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 514
27. Employees State Insurance Health Care v. Maruti Suzuki, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453
28. Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504
29. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Goa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 466
30. Govt of NCT Delhi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459
31. Gurmel Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506
32. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519
33. Harnek Singh v. Gurmit Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511
34. Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481
35. In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508
36. Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 518
37. Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496
38. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451
39. J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 456
40. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439
41. Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498
42. Kangaro Industries v. Jaininder Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437
43. Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 485
44. Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar v. Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 528
45. Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505
46. Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd. v. A. Balakrishna, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534
47. Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533
48. M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471
49. Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
50. Mahima Datla v. Renuka Datla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479
51. Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522
52. Mamta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 531
53. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510
54. Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448
55. Munni Devi @ Nathi Devi v. Rajendra @ Lallu Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515
56. Muzaffar Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 450
57. Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489
58. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443
59. Nazma Naz v. Rukhsana Bano, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 532
60. Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464
61. New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 469
62. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Anand Sonbhadra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 491
63. P.R. Adikesavan v. Registrar General, High Court of Madras, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 530
64. Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441
65. Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474
66. Pragya Higher Secondary School v. National Institute of Open Schooling, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 535
67. PTC India Financial Services Ltd v. Venkateswarlu Kari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 475
68. Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484
69. Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust v. Committee For Fixation of Fee Structure Of Private Professional Colleges, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 501
70. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461
71. Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468
72. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470
73. S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507
74. Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503
75. Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd. V. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 472
76. Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509
77. Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 460
78. Sathyanath v. Sarojamani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458
79. Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488
80. Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447
81. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523
82. State Bank of India v. Krishidhan Seeds, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497
83. State of Bihar v. Shyama Nandan Mishra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449
84. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502
85. State of Rajasthan v. Chetan Jeff, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 483
86. State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527
87. Sudhir Ranjan Patra v Himansu Sekhar Srichandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492
88. Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482
89. Suresh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490
90. Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463
91. Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454
92. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 467
93. Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438
94. Union of India v. Anil Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513
95. Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444
96. Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500
97. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 487
98. Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462
99. Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480
100. Vipan Aggarwal v. Raman Gandotra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 442
101. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436
102. Widescreen Holdings v. Religare Finvest, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 435
103. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 536