Supreme Court Monthly Digest November 2022 (Citation 893 - 998)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - The court at the referral stage can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time­barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute. In the context of issue of limitation period, it should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal for decision on merits. Similar would be the position in case of disputed "no-­claim certificate" or defence on the plea of novation and "accord and satisfaction". Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 988

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Unless on the facet it is found that the dispute is not arbitrable and if it requires further/deeper consideration, the dispute with respect to the arbitrability should be left to the arbitrator. (Para 5.3) VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt. Ltd. v. Kay Ellen Arnold, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 914

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996; Section 2(e), 34 - In the absence of the High Court of Orissa having original jurisdiction, the concerned District Court can be said to be `Court' - The proceedings under Section 34 against the award passed by the Arbitrator shall lie before the concerned District Court, as defined under Section 2(e). Yashpal Chopra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissed applications challenging the denial of Permanent Commission (PC) in the Indian Navy observing that there was no gender bias or mala fides in the grant of PC - Whether the AFT could have adjudicated on the validity of the selection proceedings when relevant material was disclosed only to the AFT in a sealed cover? The failure to disclose relevant material has caused substantial prejudice to the appellants. This case exposes the danger of following a sealed cover procedure - AFT to reconsider the entire matter afresh. Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951

Army Act, 1950; Section 122 - For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence - In this case, a letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person to the concerned authority which showed that he was aware of the alleged offence - The date 13.08.2015 would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore the time had started running from the said date for the purpose of Section 122 - The contention that the date of aggrieved person's knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence should be construed as the date when the authority prima facie concluded after the Court of Inquiry that the offence was committed, cannot be accepted - The Convening Authority having directed the trial by General Court Martial vide order dated 22.11.2018, the same was clearly beyond three years and therefore barred under Section 122 of the Act. Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931

Basic Structure Doctrine - It is therefore, inaccurate to say that provisions that enable, exercise of power, would not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The enabling provision in question's basic premise, its potential to overbear the constitutional ethos, or overcome a particular value, would be in issue. The court's inquiry therefore, cannot stop at the threshold, when an enabling provision is enacted. Its potential for violating the basic structure of the Constitution is precisely the power it confers, on the legislature, or the executive. (Para 157) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Andhra Pradesh); Section 10 - Bonafide requirement - The landlord was carrying on business and that he had children for whom he wanted to set-up a business - Rent Control Appellate Authority passed Eviction Order -Andhra Pradesh HC, while allowing Revision Petition observed that the eldest son of the Landlord was still pursuing studies and therefore the requirement of the land lord was not bona fide - Allowing the appeal, the SC observed: There is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business. The High Court, for a moment did not realize that it was dealing with a revision, where its jurisdiction was limited. Mohammed Sadiq v. Deepak Manglani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 957

CBI Investigation - Keralite Medical Student Death in Mangaluru in 2014 - Writ petition filed by his father seeking CBI investigation - Allowed - It appears prima facie that it is not a case of simple accident as opined by the Investigating Agency - CID, Bengaluru has failed to perform its duty by not thoroughly investigating the case and tried to find out the truth - It is unheard of that an abated charge-sheet can be filed against the deceased who is alleged to have been murdered/killed - Abated charge-sheet set aside. M.S. Radhakrishnan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 918

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 11B - Central Excise Rules, 2002 ; Rule 18 - While making claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall have to be applied and applicable. (Para 15) Sansera Engineering Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 997

Circumstantial Evidence - In order to sustain conviction, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused only and none else. The circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. [Para 33] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Civil Trial - Once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp, has to raised when the document is tendered in evidence. Thereafter, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to reexamine the order or issue. Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N. Hemalatha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 970

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - The case on behalf of the petitioner is that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit. The aforesaid cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Gurdev Singh v. Harvinder Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 1 proviso and Order V Rule 1(1) second proviso - Time limit for filing written statement not mandatory when the suit was instituted before the normal Civil Court and transferred to a Commercial Court after the expiry of 120 days. Raj Process Equipments and Systems v. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 928

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution Proceedings - Execution Court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing - It is duty bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of the matter - Direction issued in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 is meant to be observed. Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Educational and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 976

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2 - When the legal representative has been brought on record in appeal though from an interlocutory order, such impleadment will enure towards the proceedings in the suit itself. (Para 11 - 12) Maringmei Acham v. M. Maringmei Khuripou, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151, Order VII Rule 10 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ; Section 19, 31 - An independent suit filed by the borrower against the bank or financial institution cannot be transferred to be tried along with application under the RDB Act, as it is a matter of option of the defendant in the claim under the RDB Act - Since there is no such power, there is no question of transfer of the suit whether by consent or otherwise - Proceedings under the RDB Act will not be impeded in any manner by filing of a separate suit before the Civil Court - It is not open to a defendant, who may have taken recourse to the Civil Court, to seek a stay on the decision of the DRT awaiting the verdict of his suit before the Civil Court as it is a matter of his choice. (Para 49- 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Civil Courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred under statute either expressly or by necessary implication and such a bar is not to be readily inferred. The provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of a Civil Court requires strict interpretation and the Court would normally lean in favour of construction which would uphold the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. (Para 43) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Section 17, 18, 19 - Jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try a suit filed by a borrower against a Bank or Financial Institution is not ousted by virtue of the scheme of the RDB Act in relation to the proceedings for recovery of debt - There is no provision in the RDB Act by which the remedy of a civil suit by a defendant in a claim by the bank is ousted, but it is the matter of choice of that defendant. Such a defendant may file a counterclaim, or may be desirous of availing of the more strenuous procedure established under the Code, and that is a choice which he takes with the consequences thereof. (Para 45, 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bai - The powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused - In a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case - Unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered. (Para 19 - 20) Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 125 - Income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income. (Para 10) Kiran Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 161 and 164 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 145,157 - Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence and its use is limited for the purposes as provided under Sections 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act - statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. can also be used only for such purposes. (Para 20) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible. (Para 29, 44) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 164 - Rape victim's statement made under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person (including accused) till charge-sheet/final report is filed - Referred to State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna (2014) 8 SCC 913 and A vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 505 - Appropriate modifications / amendments be made to the Criminal Practice/Trial Rules incorporating provisions consistent with the directions issued by this Court in these decisions. X v. M Mahender Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 899

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 293 - Ballistic Report forwarded by Director/ Deputy Director/ Assistant Director of a lab under the seal can be said to be in compliance with the statutory requirement under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (Para 167-171) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant - The crucial test has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. (Para 11-12) Naveen v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 897

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41A - The observations made in the impugned judgment [State of Telangana vs Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K.] which are contrary to the observations made in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 would not be treated as a binding precedent in the State of Telangana. Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 986

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 428 - An indispensable requirement to invoke Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is that there must be a conviction. The conviction must be followed by a sentence of imprisonment. It must be for a term and it should not be imprisonment in default of payment of fine - However, for it to be invoked the existence of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial in the 'same case' is indispensable. If these requirements are satisfied, the convict would be entitled to the set off for the period of detention which he has undergone. (Para 12) Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - SLP against order of HC that imposed anticipatory bail condition that accused will return the salary which she has received while working as a Panchayat Teacher - Allowed - Additional condition of returning the amount drawn by her as salary on appointment as Panchayat Teacher is neither justified nor required under the law while grant of pre-arrest bail to her - HC direction in not sustainable legally and hence set aside. Divya Bharti v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 961

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Rape accused granted bail by the High Court observing that allegations are matter of trial and there is no need of custodial trial - Even the observation that there is no need of further custodial trial is also not relevant aspect while considering the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The same may have some relevance while considering the application for anticipatory bail - Relevant aspects which are required to be kept in mind while considering the bail application are: Seriousness of the offence alleged; material collected during the investigation; statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, etc.- HC directed to reconsider the bail application afresh. X v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 972

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Complaint on the basis of which FIR came to be registered does not disclose any act of the accused or their participation in the commission of crime - Criminal proceedings quashed. Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scope of exercise of power under Section 482 - Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exception and not the rule and it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist - If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable offence and the final report filed under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. on completion of investigation based on it would reveal that the ingredients to constitute an offence under the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the Trial Court at the time of trial. (Para 18) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 145,146 - Once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to an end - The interse rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court. Mohd. Abid v. Ravi Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 921

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 378, 386 - Jurisdiction of the High Court in Appeals against Acquittals. (Para 73-77) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulation 92(2) - There is a distinction between the absence and the post fallen vacant. Regulation 92(2) shall be applicable only in a case of absence and not in a case where the post of Chairman and/or office bearer has fallen vacant. (Para 4.4) Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulations 117(2), 119(2) - Regulation 117(2) shall be applicable in a case where the elected member of the Regional Council has been disqualified on he being found guilty of any professional or other misconduct and awarded penalty of fine. Therefore, in case of a vacation of office as per Regulation 117(2), such post fallen vacant is required to be filled in by election by electing another person from amongst its members to hold the office for the remaining period of a year (Regulation 119(2)). (Para 4.4) Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 - The 103rd Constitution Amendment cannot be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by (1) permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria (2) permitting the State to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions (3) in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation. (Para 104) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 32 - Clubbing of FIRs - Plea of accused seeking consolidating of all existing and future cases or FIRs/chargesheets to a particular Court or police station - Such direction, if given, would override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure on jurisdictional provisions without notifying the existing as also potential complainants in any manner whatsoever - The alleged cheating and connected offences have occurred at different parts of the country and each victim under the existing provisions of law has a right to prosecute his complaints against the accused through the law enforcement agency under normal circumstances having power to conduct investigation in the particular territory where complaint is lodged - A person who has lost money in, for instance, the State of Telangana cannot be compelled to lodge an F.I.R. only in the Surajpur police station in Uttar Pradesh. We have to consider his inconvenience as well. It is not our opinion that consolidation of F.I.Rs. or cases cannot be directed at all, but such exercise can be undertaken in a given case depending upon the facts and circumstances of such case. Present case does not warrant invoking such powers. Anubhav Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 980

Constitution of India, 1950; 10th Schedule - Anti Defection Law - Post- Poll alliance subject to certain conditions is permissible. Chandan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 947

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 129 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt is not confined to the procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act - It is within the constitutional power of this Court to consider the contumacious acts of a contemnor and to punish him/her for the same. (Para 11-14) In Re Perry Kansangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 905

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - It is well within the power and authority of the statutory authorities to reasonably classify different sets of employees and categorise them for the nature of benefits they might get from an existing scheme-classification of the employees made by the authorities on the basis of the salary drawn in the 2014 amendment meets the test of reasonable classification contemplated in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 30, 32) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 226 - Arbitrariness - When an act is to be treated as arbitrary? The court must carefully attend to the facts and the circumstances of the case. It should find out whether the impugned decision is based on any principle. If not, it may unerringly point to arbitrariness. If the act betrays caprice or the mere exhibition of the whim of the authority it would sufficiently bear the insignia of arbitrariness. In this regard supporting an order with a rationale which in the circumstances is found to be reasonable will go a long way to repel a challenge to state action. No doubt the reasons need not in every case be part of the order as such. If there is absence of good faith and the action is actuated with an oblique motive, it could be characterised as being arbitrary. A total non-application of mind without due regard to the rights of the parties and public interest may be a clear indicator of arbitrary action. A wholly unreasonable decision which is little different from a perverse decision under the Wednesbury doctrine would qualify as an arbitrary decision under Article 14. Ordinarily visiting a party with the consequences of its breach under a contract may not be an arbitrary decision. (Para 48) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 141 - High Court is not a Court to subordinate to the Supreme Court. However, when the High Court deals with judgments of this Court, which are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that the judgments have to be dealt with due respect. Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 986

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15(6) - Unaided private educational institutions would be bound under Article 15(6) to provide for EWS reservations. (Para 194) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - Grant of Remission - Governor, in the matter of remission of an appellant convicted under Section 302, was bound by the advice of the State Cabinet. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 173(b) - Supreme Court upholds decision of Allahabad High Court to disqualify Azam Khan's son for not meeting age criteria. Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 925

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Failure of State to maintain law and order led to riots- victims have right to seek compensation - If the citizens are forced to live in an atmosphere of communal tension, it affects their right to life guaranteed by Article 21. The violence witnessed by Mumbai in December 1992 and January 1993 adversely affected the right of the residents of the affected areas to lead dignified and meaningful life. There was a failure on the part of the State Government to maintain law and order and to protect the rights of the people guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the affected persons had a right to seek compensation from the State Government. (Para 10) Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Justice is not to be done but the justice is seen to have been done also - Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system. (Para 14) Suneetha Narreddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 996

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Appeal against the High Court judgment which allowed the request for remission itself on the premise that it is covered by the policy - It was not within the domain of judicial review for the learned judge to have himself exercised the power of remission - Though we do not find the exercise of power in the impugned judgment in accordance with law, we would not like to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India insofar as now the respondent having been given the benefit of remission, it would not be appropriate to put him back in custody. State of Haryana v. Daya Nand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 948

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulation 114(4) - Calcutta High Court set aside election of office bearers of EIRC of ICSI allowing a writ petition filed by a person who did not contest the election - In view of Regulation 114(4) of the Regulations, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition challenging the validity of the election. Even otherwise, even as per Regulation 114(4), the election can be challenged by the candidate concerned - The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition challenging the election at the instance of the respondent no.1 who even did not contest the election of the office bearers. Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere - Being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran ((2015) 2 SCC 610). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor. (Para 15-22) Union of India v. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court ought not to have granted further extension de hors the sanctioned OTS Scheme exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Directing the Bank to reschedule the payment under OTS would tantamount to modification of the contract which can be done by mutual consent under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 908

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Disciplinary Proceedings - The power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited. It is circumscribed by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not of the merits of the decision itself. (Para 11) Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review in Contractual matters - Even if it is a non-statutory contract, there is no absolute bar in dealing with a cause of action based on acts or omission by the State or its instrumentalities even during the course of the working of a contract - A monetary claim arising from a contract may be successfully urged by a writ applicant but the premise would not be a mere breach of contract. Being part of public law, the case must proceed on the basis of there being arbitrariness vitiating the decision. The matter should not fall within a genuinely disputed question of facts scenario. The dispute which must be capable of being resolved on a proper understanding of documents which are not in dispute may furnish a cause of action in a writ court. - Principles summarized. (Para 78, 54) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved - In absence of any regulation for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts - Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation. (Para 9-10) Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 909

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused. (Para 12) State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Mandamus - The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. (Para 10) State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PILs filed in the Jharkhand HC seeking probe against Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren - Appeal against HC order that held PILs maintainable - Allowed - We are not for a moment saying that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated, but for a High Court to take cognizance of the matter on these generalized submissions which do not even make prima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court - It was not proper for the High Court to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the Court with unclean hands. State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Quo Warranto - SLP against Madras HC judgment dismissing petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against Vice Presidents of ITAT appointed in January 2020 alleging that procedure for selection was contrary to the decision in Roger Mathew vs South Indian Bank Limited (2020) 6 SCC 1 - Dismissed - No recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of quo warranto could have been taken - There is no challenge to the eligibility - We have not entered upon the correctness of the reasoning of the High Court - Petitioner granted liberty to intervene in the pending proceedings in the petition instituted by the Madras Bar Association. Aniruthan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 960

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 18 - Without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, the borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application - Practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy deprecated. (Para 34) Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 243-Q(1) Proviso; Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule - Whether the exclusion of an industrial area or areas from the limits of municipal councils or municipalities under the state laws in exercise of statutory power or by virtue of a declaration under proviso to Article 243-Q, would result in that area ceasing to be a "local area" within Entry 52 of List II ? - Industrial areas or estates are equally "local areas" - The application of state laws regarding industrial areas squarely falls within the expression "description of a body constituted for the purposes of local affairs of the State". (Para 45) OCL India Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ Petition seeking directions for expeditious hearing of a petition which is already pending before the High Court - Dismissed - Ignorance of law is no defence - Such kind of petitions seem to be leading the litigant up the garden path. Nepal Das v. High Court of Calcutta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 946

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ petition seeking transfer of criminal trial - Murder of former AP Minister YS Vivekananda Reddy from Andhra Pradesh - For transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done - However the Court has to see whether the apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be imaginary, but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension - Petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations - This is a fit case to transfer the trial and further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence to the State other than the State of Andhra Pradesh - Trial Transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad. Suneetha Narreddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 996

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 - Constitution validity of EWS Quota upheld - Reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India - Exclusion of the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirements of non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination, does not violate Equality Code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. (Para 102) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 - The total and absolute exclusion of constitutionally recognised backward classes of citizens - and more acutely, SC and ST communities, is nothing but discrimination which reaches to the level of undermining, and destroying the equality code, and particularly the principle of nondiscrimination - The insertion of Article 15(6) and 16(6) is struck down, is held to be violative of the equality code, particularly the principle of nondiscrimination and non-exclusion which forms an inextricable part of the basic structure of the Constitution - While special provisions based on objective economic criteria (for the purpose of Article 15), is per se not violative of the basic structure the same is not true for Article 16, the goal of which is empowerment, through representation of the community. (Para 189-193) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent. in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent. because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. (Para 102) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 243X and 243Y - Whether any proposal for change or modification in the methodology adopted for levy of property tax ought to have been initiated through the Finance Commission alone? If the Legislature itself has taken into account certain prevailing situation, which according to the Legislature is causing some prejudice to the financial health and condition of the municipalities and, therefore, the method of imposition of property tax ought to be changed, it cannot then be said that the matter must necessarily and ought to have emanated from the Finance Commission or that in the absence of such recommendations by the Finance Commission, no steps could have been taken by the Legislature. (Para 25-27) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 927

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 298, 162 - For the purpose of Article 298, the broader concept of State, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution, which, no doubt, would include a fully owned Government Company, is inapposite and inapplicable - A Company, would not be entitled to exercise the executive power contemplated in Article 162 of the Constitution, which is the power with the Union or the State Governments. (Para 17) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Constitution of India, 1950; Part IX A, Article 243-Q(1) Proviso - The proviso to Article 243-Q(1) has to be read in context, that industrial areas and estates, administered in terms of some legal regime, where some municipal services were provided, could be exempt from the requirements spelt out in Part IX-A of the Constitution - The focus of provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution inserted through the 74th Amendment was on local self-governance and all provisions concerning it. It had no relevance to the issue of State taxation. (Para 44) OCL India Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Consumer Commission has power to issue directions for consequential relief if the terms of the contract are found to be unfair [Para 33 to 35] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Section 38(2)(a), 59(1) - The period of limitation for opposite party to file written version is 30 days which can be condoned up to 15 days only - The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period mentioned in the Statute. Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Kutumb Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 930

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Contempt petition filed by RIL alleging non compliance of directions issued to SEBI in Reliance Industries Ltd vs Securities and Exchange Board of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659 - Notice Issued to respondent - Merely because the stay application is pending in review petition cannot be a ground to grant stay by the respondent on its own and not to comply with the directions issued by this Court. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Vijayan A., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 950

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty for committing contempt of the Court. Mohan Chandra P. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 952

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Supreme Court issues show-cause notice for contempt of courts action against Advocate on Record for signing a petition with derogatory remarks against High Court. Mohan Chandra P. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 952

Contract Act, 1872 - Doctrine of Blue Pencil -The said doctrine strikes off the offending clause as void ab initio. An exclusion clause repugnant to the main contract ought to be effaced. [Para 22] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Contract Act, 1872; Section 10 - It is not essential to form a contract, that it should be in writing - If a law stipulates that a contract be in writing in which case a contract must be reduced to writing. (Para 56) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. JSW Energy Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 981

Contract Act, 1872; Sections 2, 10 - Concluded Contract - In order that there must be a contract concluded, undoubtedly, there must be a proposal made, which must be accepted. There must be consideration for the promise. The proposal must be accepted, which must be communicated - The acceptance must be unqualified - The parties can be said to have entered into a contract or a contract would be said to be concluded only when they are ad idem on all the essential terms of the contract - If the proposals containing the essential terms have been accepted, and the acceptance is communicated and, if the other conditions in Section 2 are complied with, viz. , that is there is consideration and the contract is enforceable in law, within the meaning of Section 10, it would lead to the creation of a concluded contract. (Para 78) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. JSW Energy Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 981

Criminal Investigation - Test Identification Parade - Threefold object of conducting TIP - Necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade -TIP to be held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused - Healthy ratio between suspects and non­suspects during a TIP - TIP is not just an empty formality. (Para 25 - 31) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Criminal Justice System - The criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment - The present appeals were preferred assailing that order and interim stay was granted at the threshold. The trial of course naturally did not proceed in view of the stay by this Court. The matter has rested at that for the last thirteen years. V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 994

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The five golden principles laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 (Para 6) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Defective investigation by the investigating authorities by itself does vitiate the case of the prosecution when there are credible eye-witness testimonies as well as other compelling pieces of evidence. (Para 140) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Criminal Trial - Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021; Rule 4 - That some High Courts or governments of the States/ Union Territories have failed to comply with this court's order and are delayed in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice the right of an accused to receive this list of the statements, documents, material, etc. in the possession of the prosecution - To say that the judgment in Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510 in relation to this, and the right of the accused to receive the said list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted – would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one state, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another. P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 923

Criminal Trial - Extra Judicial Confession - When the extra judicial confession is not duly proved, or does not inspire confidence or is not corroborated by any other reliable evidence, the conviction could not be based solely on such weak piece of evidence. (Para 8) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Last Seen Together Theory - The failure of the accused, in a case based on circumstantial evidence which included "last seen together theory", to explain under Section 313 Cr.PC as to under what circumstances the victim suffered death, would also not be a ground to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the accused were involved in the commission of the alleged crime - If there is considerable time gap between the persons seeing together and the proximate time of the crime, the circumstances of last seen together, even if proved cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt of the accused. (Para 11-12) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Motive - Sufficiency or insufficiency of motive does not have a direct bearing on the actual evidence against the accused, particularly when the prosecution relies on direct evidence of injured eyewitnesse. (Para 82-85) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Criminal Trial - Motive - Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. (Para 14) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Skull Superimposition Technique - Though identification of the deceased through superimposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence, however the courts generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as the sole incriminating circumstances, given its fallibility, and the superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible - When the super-imposition report is not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the super-imposition test - When as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else. (Para 13) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless. (Para 29) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Criminal Trial - Where there are credible injured eye-witness testimonies, certain minor variations, such as non-recovery of blood-stained clothes, certain other weapons etc. will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. (Para 164) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Death Penalty - It may be true that if the accused involved in the heinous crime go unpunished or are acquitted, a kind of agony and frustration may be caused to the society in general and to the family of the victim in particular, however the law does not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. No conviction should be based merely on the apprehension of indictment or condemnation over the decision rendered. Every case has to be decided by the Courts strictly on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any kind of outside moral pressures. Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Death Penalty - Supreme Court acquits three persons who were sentenced to death by the trial court and the High Court for rape and murder of a 19-year old girl- Supreme Court notes lapses in investigation and trial - No Test Identification of accused done- Accused no identified during trial by witnesses- many witnesses no cross-examined- recoveries not proved. [Paras 32-34] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Death Sentence - Effect of delay in execution of death sentence due to pendency of Mercy Petition discussed. (Para 12-17) B.A. Umesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 907

Death Sentence - Solitary Confinement - Accused sentenced to death for rape and murder of a housewife - The incarceration in solitary confinement and segregation from 2006 to 2013 was without the sanction of law and completely opposed to the principles laid down by this Court in Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration & Ors (1978) 4 SCC 494 - The incarceration in solitary confinement thus did show ill effects on the well-being - He is entitled to have the death sentence imposed upon him to be commuted to death sentence to life - He shall undergo minimum sentence of 30 years and if any application for remission is moved on his behalf, the same shall be considered on its own merits only after he has undergone actual sentence of 30 years - If no remission is granted, the sentence of imprisonment for life shall mean till the remainder of his life. B.A. Umesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 907

Death Sentence - When there is challenge to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India by acts of terrorism, such acts are taken as the most aggravating circumstances - The cumulative effect of the aggravating factors and the mitigating circumstances must be taken into account before the death sentence is awarded. (Para 29-30) Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Andhra Pradesh) - Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un­Aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (Andhra Pradesh); Rule 4 - Government order issued by State of Andhra Pradesh that enhanced the tuition fee of Private Medical Colleges by seven times, to Rs. 24 lakhs per annum - State Governnment could not have enhanced the fee during the review pending with the AFRC. To enhance the fee unilaterally would be contrary to the objects and purpose of the 1983 Act as well as the 2006 Rules, 2006 and the decision in P.A. Inamdar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (2005) 6 SCC 537. (Para 3.1, 5) Narayana Medical College v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929

Electricity Act, 2003 - The Appropriate State Commissions possess the power to determine and regulate tariff. The Electricity Act 2003 seeks to distance the State Governments from the determination and regulation of tariff, placing such power completely within the ambit of the Appropriate Commissions - States have sufficient flexibility to regulate the intra-state transmission systems. (Para 128) TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 125 - Findings of fact by the Regulatory Commission and the Tribunal cannot be reopened on appeal under Section 125 - Appeal shall lie only if the court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (Para 106.2) TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 181 - State Regulatory Commissions to frame Regulations under Section 181 of the Act on the terms and conditions for determination of tariff within three months from the date of this judgment. While framing these guidelines on determination of tariff, the Appropriate Commission shall be guided by the principles prescribed in Section 61, which also includes the NEP and NTP. Where the Appropriate Commission(s) has already framed regulations, they shall be amended to include provisions on the criteria for choosing the modalities to determine the tariff, in case they have not been already included. The Commissions while being guided by the principles contained in Section 61 shall effectuate a balance that would create a sustainable model of electricity regulation in the States. The Regulatory Commission shall curate to the specific needs of the State while framing these regulations. (Para 131) TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 86(1)(a) - MERC while exercising its general regulatory powers under Section 86(1)(a) shall be guided by the NTP 2016, which shall be a material consideration. Accordingly, while NTP 2016 requires intra-state transmission projects above the threshold limit to be allotted through TBCB route, this constitutes a material consideration to be taken into account. (Para 128) TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987

Electricity Act, 2003; Sections 61 - 63 - Electricity Act do not prescribe one dominant method to determine tariff. Section 63 operates after the bidding process has been conducted. Where the tariff has already been determined through bidding, the Appropriate Commission has to adopt such tariff that has been determined. The Appropriate Commission cannot negate such tariff determined through bidding by using its powers under Section 62. The tariff determined through the bidding process may not be adopted by the Appropriate Commission only if the bidding process was not transparent (undertaking a substantive review) or the procedure prescribed by the Central Government guidelines under Section 63 was not followed (undertaking a procedural review)- Sections 62 and 63 stipulate the modalities of tariff determination. The non-obstante clause in Section 63 cannot be interpreted to mean that Section 63 would take precedence over Section 62 at the stage of choosing the modality to determine tariff. The criteria or guidelines for the determination of the modality of tariff determination ought to be notified by the Appropriate State Commission either through regulations under Section 181 of the Act or guidelines under Section 61 of the Act. (Para 128) TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987

Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (Karnataka); Section 27(2) - The proviso when it uses the words 'contracts concluded', does not use the words 'contracts concluded as regards tariffs' . A contract of the nature cannot be said to consist only of a rate and the term or even the quantum included. In a contract of this nature, there are obviously variou other aspects about which the parties must be ad idem. The rate, the term and quantum are integrally interconnected with other terms. There cannot be concluded contract without parties being ad idem about those terms. (Para 79) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. JSW Energy Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 981

Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 (Karnataka); Section 41 - A Right of Appeal is a creature of a Statute. The right can be qualified or conditioned. The ambit of the appellate power is to be discerned from the terms of the Statute. A 'question of law' is not the same as a 'substantial question of law'. However, when the Statute insists on a 'question of law' to maintain an appeal, the Appellate Body stands constrained to that extent. (Para 88) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. JSW Energy Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 981

Electricity Regulatory Commission (Karnataka) - The Commission is an Expert Body. Interference with its findings cannot be sustained, to begin with, if it is bereft of reasons. Findings of such a body must receive due deference. Perversity in the sense of findings, which are wholly without basis or material or which no person with the professed skills would arrive at, may merit interference. A finding, which ill squares with a clear statutory injunction, would leave the door ajar for overturning the finding. (Para 89) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. JSW Energy Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 981

Employees Pension Amendment Scheme - The amendment was made in exercise of power otherwise vested in the authority making such amendment and the amendments were made on the basis of certain relevant materials and not whimsically. (Para 32) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912

Employees Provident Fund Act - Employees Pension Scheme - Supreme Court holds Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014 as legal and valid- Extends cut-off date to exercise option by four months- Holds condition for additional contribution by employees as ultra vires the EPF Act. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 39(5)(a) - Neither the Authority nor the Court have any authority to either waive the interest and/or reduce the interest and/or the period during which the interest is payable - The interest leviable/payable is a statutory liability to pay the interest -The liability to pay the interest is from the date on which such contribution has become due and till the date of its actual payment. Regional Director / Recovery Officer v. Nitinbhai Vallabhai Panchasara, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 983

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 165 - Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth. The Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but issupposed to actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion. [Para 34] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65B - The decision in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473 as clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1 is the law declared on Section 65B of the Evidence Act. (Para 22-24) Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 9 - The evidence of a TIP is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial. Therefore, TIPs, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained. (Para 26) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Exim Policy - The DGFT/Union is free to change the Exim Policy and consider from time to time on which items there shall be an incentive and on which items there shall not be any incentive. To grant the benefit of an incentive is a policy decision which may be varied and/or even withdrawn. No exporter can claim the incentive as a matter of right. Under the circumstances, the doctrine of promissory estoppel shall not be applicable to such a policy decision with respect to incentive. (Para 7) Chowgule & Company Ltd. v. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 919

Fake Pharmacists - PIL before Patna HC restored - The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the PIL ventilating the very serious grievances touching the health and life of the citizen is disapproved - High Court to call for detailed report/counter from the State of Bihar and Bihar State Pharmacy Council on (i) how many Governments' hospitals/hospitals/medical stores/private hospitals are being run either by fake pharmacist or without registered pharmacist; (ii) whether any action is taken by the State Government on the fact-finding committee report submitted by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council which was reported to be forwarded to the State Government; (iii) whether there are any fake pharmacists as alleged in the writ petition; (iv) any action is taken by the State Government or by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council against such fake pharmacist; (v) whether the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 are being followed in the entire State of Bihar or not. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 995

High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 (Jharkhand); Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5 , 6A - Jharkhand HC held that Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view of Rule 6-A and therefore even though the Rules have not been followed that really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain a PIL, since the nature of allegations in the PIL was of a serious nature - Disapproving this view, the Supreme Court held: This reasoning, in our view, is in teeth of the directions given in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal ((2010) 3 SCC 402), as well as a clear violation of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, primarily Rule 4-B. - The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause. (Para 14-16) State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

High Court Rules (Bombay); Chapter XXX; Rule 3(1) Proviso - Once an application was preferred by any of the parties that a review may be heard by the Judge who had decided the matter and had passed the order from which the review arose, the matter ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than order being passed on the judicial side. The proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules confers this power on the Chief Justice to assign a particular matter to a single Judge for hearing of the review application where the single Judge concerned was not available for the time being by reason of being on leave or otherwise as aforesaid i.e. where he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench. The Chief Justice, is the master of roster and is conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules. Suresh G. Ramnani v. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 939

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(5), 192(1) - Income Tax Rules, 1962; Rule 2B - Appeal against Delhi HC Judgment holding that amount received by SBI employees towards their Leave Travel Concession (LTC) claims is not liable for the exemption as these employees had visited foreign countries which is not permissible under the law - Dismissed - LTC is not for foreign travel - The travel must be done from one designated place in India to another designated place within India - The moment employees undertake travel with a foreign leg, it is not a travel within India and hence not covered under the provisions of Section 10(5) - Employer cannot claim ignorance about the travel plans of its employees as during settlement of LTC Bills the complete facts are available before the assessee about the details of their employees' travels. Therefore, it cannot be a case of bonafide mistake. State Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 917

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 194H - Contract Act, 1870; Section 182 - Application of Section 194H of the IT Act to the Supplementary Commission amounts earned by the travel agent - Section 194H is to be read with Section 182 of the Contract Act. If a relationship between two parties as culled out from their intentions as manifested in the terms of the contract between them indicate the existence of a principal­agent relationship as defined under Section 182 of the Contract Act, then the definition of "Commission" under Section 194H of the IT Act stands attracted and the requirement to deduct TDS arises. Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. C.I.T., Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 220(2A) - Merely raising the dispute before any authority cannot be a ground not to levy the interest and/or waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) - Otherwise each and every assessee may raise a dispute and thereafter may contend that as the assessee was bona fidely litigating and therefore no interest shall be leviable - Under Section 220(2) of the Act, the levy of simple interest on non-payment of the tax @ 1% p.a. is, as such, mandatory. Pioneer Overseas Corporation USA v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 944

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 260A - Appeals against every decision of ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Commissioner of Income Tax - I v. Balak Capital Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 982

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 271C - If the recipient of income on which TDS has not been deducted, even though it was liable to such deduction under the IT Act, has already included that amount in its income and paid taxes on the same, the Assessee can no longer be proceeded against for recovery of the short fall in TDS. However, it would be open to the Revenue to seek payment of interest under Section 201(1A) for the period between the date of default in deduction of TDS and the date on which the recipient actually paid income tax on the amount for which there had been a shortfall in such deduction. (Para 56) Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. C.I.T., Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 45(4) - Section 45(4) applicable to not only the cases of dissolution but also cases of subsisting partners of a partnership, transferring the assets in favour of a retiring partner. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 991

Insurance Act 1938 - Duty of insurer to disclose exclusion clause - When an exclusion clause is introduced making the contract unenforceable on the date on which it is executed, much to the knowledge of the insurer, non-disclosure and a failure to furnish a copy of the said contract by following the procedure required by statute, would make the said clause redundant and non-existent. [Para 15] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Insurance Act, 1938 - An exclusion clause in a contract of insurance has to be interpreted differently. Not only the onus but also the burden lies with the insurer when reliance is made on such a clause. This is for the reason that insurance contracts are special contracts premised on the notion of good faith. It is not a leverage or a safeguard for the insurer, but is meant to be pressed into service on a contingency, being a contract of speculation. An insurance contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all material facts by both parties. [Para 11] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Insurance Act, 1938 - Any non-compliance of IRDA Regulations, obviously would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the offending clause, be it an exclusion clause, cannot be pressed into service by the insurer against the insured as he may not be in knowhow of the same. [Para 21] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Interpretation of Contract - Contract between FCI and transport contractors - Whether the demurrages imposed on the Corporation by the Railways can be, in turn, recovered by the Corporation from the contractors as "charges" recoverable under this clause? The Corporation in the present contract has chosen not to include the power to recover demurrages and as such the expression "charges" cannot be interpreted to include demurrages - Demurrage is undoubtedly a charge, however, such a textual understanding would not help us decipher the true and correct intention of the parties to the present contract. Food Corporation of India v. Abhijith Paul, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 975

Interpretation of Contract - Scope of contractual expressions must be understood as intended by the parties to the contract - The process of interpretation, though the exclusive domain of the Court, inheres the duty to decipher the meaning attributed to contractual terms by the parties to the contract - Words and expressions used in the contract are principal tools to ascertain such intention. While interpreting the words, courts look at the expressions falling for interpretation in the context of other provisions of the contract and also in the context of the contract as a whole. These are intrinsic tools for interpreting a contract. As a principle of interpretation, courts do not resort to materials external to the contract for construing the intention of the parties. There are, however, certain exceptions to the rule excluding reference or reliance on external sources to interpret a contract. One such exception is in the case of a latent ambiguity, which cannot be resolved without reference to extrinsic evidence. Latent ambiguity exists when words in a contract appear to be free from ambiguity; however, when they are sought to be applied to a particular context or question, they are amenable to multiple outcomes - Extrinsic evidence, in cases of latent ambiguity, is admissible both to ascertain where necessary, the meaning of the words used, and to identify the objects to which they are to be applied. (Para 17, 27) Food Corporation of India v. Abhijith Paul, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 975

Interpretation of Contract - The rights and duties of the parties to the contract subsist or perish in terms of the contract itself. Even if a party to the contract is a governmental authority, there is no place for discretion vested in the officers administering the contract. Discretion, a principle within the province of administrative law, has no place in contractual matters unless, of course, the parties have expressly incorporated it as a part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the court while interpreting the terms of the contracts, to reject the exercise of any such discretion that is entirely outside the realm of the contract. (Para 22 - 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. SEW Construction Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 977

Interpretation of Statutes - Legal Fiction - Legal fiction presupposes the existence of the State of facts which may not exist and then works out the consequences which flow from that state of facts. (Para 26) Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 893

Interpretation of Statutes - Meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the court as to what is just and expedient - While interpretating a statute, if two interpretations are possible, the one which enhances the object of the Act should be preferred than the one which would frustrate the object of the Act. (Para 27) Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 893

Interpretation of Statutes - Words of a taxing statute should be read in their ordinary, natural, and grammatical meaning - In construing the words in a constitutional enactment that confers legislative power, a liberal construction should be placed upon the words so that they may have effect in their widest amplitude. (Para 47) OCL India Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Judges Appointment - Delays in appointment will discourage competent lawyers in opting for judgeship - With the expanding opportunities to prominent lawyers, it is as it is a challenge to persuade persons of eminence to be invited to the Bench. On top of that if the process takes ages, there is a further discouragement to them to accept the invitation and this is undoubtedly weighing with the members of the Bar in accepting the invitation to adorn the Bench-unless the Bench is adorned by competent lawyers very concept of Rule of Law and Justice suffers. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Appointment - Supreme Court issues notice to the Secretary (Justice) and the current Additional Secretary (Administration and Appointment) over delays in clearing collegium reiterations. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Appointments - Once the Government has expressed its reservation and that has been dealt with by the Collegium, post second reiteration, only the appointment has to take place. Thus, keeping the names pending is something not acceptable. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Appointments - Supreme Court criticises Centre keeping the recommendations pending - We find the method of keeping the names on hold whether duly recommended or reiterated is becoming some sort of a device to compel these persons to withdraw their names as has happened. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Appointments - Supreme Court makes critical remarks against the Union Government over delay in clearing names reiterated by the Collegium. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Review - Limited scope of judicial review over policy matters of executive-we do not think in exercise of judicial power we can require the State to operate a pension scheme in a particular manner. These factors would be for the policy makers to examine and prescribe. We cannot issue directions on the Central Government to work out statutory scheme in a particular fashion. (Para 32) Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Rising rate of juvenile delinquency in India is a matter of concern and requires immediate attention - We have started gathering an impression that the leniency with which the juveniles are dealt with in the name of goal of reformation is making them more and more emboldened in indulging in such heinous crimes - It is for the Government to consider whether its enactment of 2015 has proved to be effective or something still needs to be done in the matter before it is too late in the day. (Para 79) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation attached to the Juvenile Justice Act would thus be extended to only such cases wherein the accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence inspiring confidence regarding his minority as the benefit of the possibilities of two views in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is involved in grave and serious offence which he is alleged to have committed and gave effect to it in a well-planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his rescue. (Para 72) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Juvenility Claims - Age Determination Techniques - There are better techniques available and are used for determination of age across the world. For example, the United States Immigration Department uses 'wisdom teeth' technique for determination of age - Another technique is 'epigenetic clock' technique - Such techniques should be introduced in our country as well. (Para 75) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Kathua rape-murder case - SC sets aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which held that one of the accused in the Kathua rape-murder case was a juvenile - The accused was not a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and should be tried the way other co-accused were tried in accordance with the law. Law to take its own course. State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquired in 1981 but compensation not yet paid - Authorities directed payment of compensation within two months - The value of the said land cannot be computed at the rate less than Rs. 250/­ per sq. yard which is supported by the evidence brought on record by the land owners. Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ismail Bhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 984

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value. S. Shankaraiah v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 934

Land Law - Supreme Court holds that persons in four villages which were acquired for Mahanadi coalfields in 1988 are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Directions issued for providing employment and resettlement packages in addition to land compensation. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Legal Maxims - "Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant" (the later laws shall abrogate earlier contrary laws) - "generalia specialibus non derogant" (General laws do not prevail over Special laws). When there is apparent conflict between two statutes, the provisions of a general statute must yield to those of a special one. (Para 17, 18) Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 893

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Section 12 (e) - Incidents of December 1992 and January 1993 are the incidents of ethnic violence within the meaning of clause (e) of Sub­section (1) of Section 12 of the 1987 Act - Riot victims are entitled to free legal aid. (Para 16) Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910

Legislation - Writ petition seeking direction to centre and States to publish draft legislation - There are certain Legislations which contemplate participation of public at certain levels. For instance, in some town-planning legislations public participation at the stage of finalization of a Draft Development Plan is contemplated and encouraged. The legislative provisions thus do provide for such participation whenever deemed appropriate - It would not be proper on our part to direct the Government at the Central or State level to publish every Draft Legislation. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 906

Legislation - Writ petition seeking direction to centre and States to publish legislation in regional language - We do see some force in the submission that the people at large must have every facility to make themselves aware of the Legislations that would govern their conduct and day-to-day life and therefore such Legislations must be kept in public domain in all regional languages - We only express hope that the abovementioned prayer would be looked into by all the concerned and steps in that behalf shall be taken. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 906

Letter of Credit - A letter of credit is independent of and unqualified by the contract of sale or underlying transactions. Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. v. UPS Freight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 938

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 14 - Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay. The period once excluded, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned - For exclusion of time under Section 14, the conditions stipulated in Section 14 have to be satisfied. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 964

Mercy Petition - Procedure governing petitions for mercy in death sentence cases provides the mercy petition must be filed within seven days of the disposal of the appeal or dismissal of special leave petition - The concerned instructionrequires suitable modification so as to enable the convicted accused to file mercy petition after exhaustion of remedies in Court of law. (Para 29) B.A. Umesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 907

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Section 17, 18 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 80 - No party to a dispute with regard to any amount due under Section 17 of the MSMED Act, 2006 would be precluded from making a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, though an independent arbitration agreement exists between the parties - Chapter-V of the MSMED Act, 2006 would override the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 - The Facilitation Council, which had initiated the Conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006 would be entitled to act as an arbitrator despite the bar contained in Section 80 of the Arbitration Act - Such proceedings would be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1996 -The Facilitation Council / institute /centre acting as an arbitral tribunal would be competent to rule on its own jurisdiction as also the other issues. (Para 34) Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 893

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Section 2(n) - A party who was not the 'supplier' as per the definition contained in Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act, 2006 on the date of entering into contract cannot seek any benefit as the 'supplier' under the MSMED Act, 2006. If any registration is obtained subsequently the same would have an effect prospectively and would apply to the supply of goods and rendering services subsequent to the registration. (Para 34) Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 893

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well - Law regarding determination of compensation discussed - "Just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident - Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. (Para 29-32, 139) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - If the liability of the Insurance Company is decided and they are held not to be liable, ordinarily, there shall be no direction to "pay and recover" - In all cases such order of "pay and recover" would not arise when the Insurance Company is not liable but would, in the facts and circumstances, be considered by this Court to meet the ends of justice. Balu Krishna Chavan v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 932

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Notional Income - It is not necessary to adduce any documentary evidence to prove the notional income of the victim and the Court can award the same even in the absence of any documentary evidence - The Court should ensure while choosing the method and fixing the notional income that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. (Para 59) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Pecuniary Expenses and Non- Pecuniary Loss - "Future Medical Expenses" and "Attendant Charges" would fall within the ambit of Pecuniary Expenses - "Pain and suffering" would be categorized as a non-pecuniary loss as it is incapable of being arithmetically calculated. Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including the victim's age, the unusual deprivation the victim has suffered, the effect thereof on his or her future life. (Para 67, 93) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (Mumbai); Section 154 - Capital Value Rules - Rule 20 of the Capital Value Rules of 2010 and 2015 empower the Commissioner to consider the capability of the open land of utilizing more than 1 floor space index (FSI) or any transfer of development right (TDR), would go well beyond the permissible scope delineated by the provisions of Section 154 of the MMC Act - Rule 20 of the Capital Value Rules of 2010 and the Capital Value Rules of 2015 would be ultra vires the provisions of sub­Sections (1A) and (1B) of Section 154 of the MMC Act - There being no empowerment to compute and/or levy property tax with retrospective effect by the statute itself, the rule making power, in any view of the matter, could not have created a liability pertaining to the period well before the Rules came into effect. (Para 38-39) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 927

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (Mumbai); Section 154 - Imposition of property tax on the capital value - For the purpose of determining capital value, only the present physical attributes and status of the land and building can be considered and not the future prospects of the land - Statutory provisions do not contemplate any likelihood of exploitation of capacity in future - The capital value of the land and building must be based on situation "in presenti" - In projects which are in progress, the value addition to the property would be ongoing feature. (Para 36-40) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 927

Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Sections 6, 6A, 20(3) Proviso - Standing Committee stands dissolved along with the completion of the term of the Corporation -The proviso cannot be read to mean that notwithstanding the expiration of the duration of a Corporation and thereby, termination of the term of office of the Councillors, there could still be any Standing Committee in existence. (Para 13-15) Hemant Narayan Rasne v. Commissioner and Administrator of Pune Municipal Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 895

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 2(xvii) - Once it is found that the seized material contain 'morphine' and 'meconic acid' it is sufficient to establish that the seized material comes within the definition of Section 2(xvii) of the NDPS Act (opium poppy). State of Himachal Pradesh v. Angejo Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 990

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 21 - The quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the "small or commercial quantity" of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. Intelligence Officer, Thiruvananthapuram v. K.K. Naushad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 978

National Council for Teachers Education Regulations, 2014; Rule 7(5) - Recognition of B.Ed Colleges - State is well within its right to make suitable recommendations - When the State Government is required to provide detailed reasons against grant of recognition with necessary statistics, it includes the need and/or requirement. Therefore, the State Government was well within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favour of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the need of annually 2500 teachers approximately 13000 students would be passing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students, there will be unemployment - The need of the new colleges looking to the requirement can be said to be a relevant consideration and a decision not to recommend further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges on the need basis cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Para 8) State of Uttarakhand v. Nalanda College of Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 943

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 139 - Presumption under Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. Jain P. Jose v. Santhosh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 979

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 141 - For maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of NI Act, arraigning of the company as an accused is imperative and non-impleadment of the company would be fatal for the complaint. (Para 19-21) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 141, 142 - Whether the amendment in the complaint and the impleadment of an additional accused subsequent to filing of the complaint is pemissible? The argument that an additional accused can be impleaded subsequent to the filing of the complaint merits no consideration, once the limitation prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 142 of NI Act has expired. More particularly, in view of the fact that neither any effort was made by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings to arraign the company as an accused nor any such circumstances or reason has been pointed out to enable the Court to exercise the power conferred by proviso to Section 142, to condone the delay for not making the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation. (Para 22-23) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138,141 - Whether it is necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of, or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - the liability arises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or a position in a company. Therefore, in order to bring a case within Section 141 of the Act the complaint must disclose the necessary facts which make a person liable. (Para 26-31) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

One Time Settlement Scheme - The borrower as a matter of right cannot claim that though it has not made the payment as per the sanctioned OTS Scheme still it be granted further extension as a matter of right - Bank mutually can agree to extend the time which is permissible under Section 62 of the 18 Indian Contract Act. State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 908

Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 - U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - UP Entry Tax Act, 2007 - Inclusion of industrial townships within the definition of the local area - Constitutional Validity upheld - The object of the levy, i.e., entry tax, is the regulation of entry of goods in a regular area for consumption, i.e., manufacture, use or sale. There is no dispute that entry of goods into an industrial area or estate is for their use for manufacturing or for processing or for the purposes of their delivery as their ultimate point of destination, i.e. for the purpose of their "consumption, use or sale" within that area. It could even be that the goods enter within the industrial area or estate, as the ultimate point of destination for their use. In any case, the levy would be attracted because the incidence is the entry into the local area. (Para 48) OCL India Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Kerala); Section 102(1)(ca) - The failure to make a true disclosure in Form 2A, regarding the past conviction, will certainly come within the meaning of the word 'fake', mentioned in Section 102 (1)(ca) - A person having criminal antecedents, poses himself to be one without any such antecedent, when he fails to make a true disclosure. In law, he passes off or comes out as a person without any criminal antecedent. (Para 33) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Kerala); Section 52(1A) - The words "involvement in a criminal case at the time of filing of the nomination" would only mean (i) cases where a criminal complaint is pending investigation/trial; (ii) cases where the conviction and/or sentence is current at the time of filing of the nomination; and (iii) cases where the conviction is the subject matter of any appeal or revision pending at the time of the nomination. (Para 37) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Kerala); Section 52(1A) and 102(1) - Police Act, 1960 (Kerala); Sections 38 and 52 - The failure of the elected candidate to disclose (in nomination form) his conviction for an offence under the Kerala Police Act for holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat office, cannot be taken as a ground for declaring an election void. (Para 46) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - There is no requirement to prove a common intention for an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC - Unlawful assembly and common object discussed. (Para 143-147) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302, 304 Part II - Appeal against concurrent murder conviction of a husband accused of killing wife - Partly allowed - Modified to Section 304 Part II of IPC - there was no pre-mediation to cause the death and the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and the appellant having realised his mistake had thereafter taken immediate steps to shift his wife to the hospital but unfortunately she breathed her last. Jai Karan Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 992

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Abetment of Suicide - Student committed suicide following disciplinary Action by educational institution - FIR registered against the teacher, the Head of the Department and the Principal on the complaint filed by student's father that the suicide was instigated by them - Discharging the accused, the Supreme Court observed: We find not an iota of material on record even assuming the complete charge sheet to be correct which could lead to a conviction in a case of abetment as there was absence of the necessary ingredients to make the offence. While we appreciate the anguish of a father who has lost a young son, that cannot result in blaming the world (in the present case, the institution and its teachers) for what is a basic disciplinary action necessary for running the institute. A contra position would create a lawless and unmanageable situation in an educational institution. V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 994

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld - Wife's submission that she would not like to contest the appeal and she wants to join her husband and revive their matrimonial life - In this proceeding, we cannot pass any order on that count. For that purpose, the wife may take such steps as may be advised. Considering the overall circumstances, the punishment of rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in incarceration. Randeep Singh v. State of U T Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 962

Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Defamation complaint against Mr. Aroon Purie (Editor in Chief of India Today) and author of an article and others - Nothing specific has been attributed to Editor-in-Chief and therefore, he cannot be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article - With regard to the role ascribed to author, his case stands on a different footing - Whether what he did was an act which was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial- In a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC has been extended and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of exception can only be afforded at the stage of trial. (Para 21) Aroon Purie v. State of Nct of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 894

Pharmacy Act, 1948 - Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 - It is the duty of Pharmacy Council and State Government to see that the hospitals/medical stores, etc., are not run by the fake pharmacist and are run by the registered pharmacist only - Running the hospitals/dispensaries in absence of any registered pharmacist and/or running such hospitals by fake pharmacist and even running the medical stores by fake pharmacist and without even any pharmacist will ultimately affect the health of the citizen. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 995

Police Act, 1960 (Kerala) - While offences under the Indian Penal Code or under special enactments such as Prevention of Corruption Act, Arms Act and so on and so forth are substantive offences, the commission of which may make a person a criminal, an offence under certain enactments such as Kerala Police Act are not substantive offences - Protest is a tool in the hands of the civil society and police action is a tool in the hands of the Establishment. All State enactments such as Kerala Police Act, Madras Police Act etc., are aimed at better regulation of the police force and they do not create substantive offences. This is why these Acts themselves empower the police to issue necessary directions for the maintenance of law and order and the violation of any of those directions is made a punishable offence under these Acts - Kerala Police Act, 1960 is actually the successor legislation of certain police enactments of the colonial era, whose object was to scuttle the democratic aspirations of the indigenous population. (Para 45-47) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Practice and Procedure - Adverse remarks made by Rajasthan HC against a Sessions Judge set aside - The observations are not called for in the given scenario and in fact it is such an approach which discourages the trial Courts in granting bail resulting in huge volume of litigation before the High Court and this Court. Sarita Swami v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 985

Practice and Procedure - It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time. Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969

Practice and Procedure - Sealed Cover Procedure - The disclosure of relevant material to the adjudicating authority in a sealed cover sets a dangerous precedent and makes the process of adjudication vague and opaque - All material which is relied upon by either party in the course of a judicial proceeding must be disclosed - The measure of non - disclosure of sensitive information in exceptional circumstances must be proportionate to the purpose that the non-disclosure seeks to serve. The exceptions should not, however, become the norm. (Para 27, 28) Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951

Precedent - A judgment of a Court is not to be read as the Euclid's Theorem shorn of the facts and the context in which the law has been declared. (Para 11) Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974

Precedent - High Court bound to follow subsequent decision of Supreme Court on the point/issue. State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 908

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867; Section 7 - Though the benefit of presumption under Section 7 is not applicable so far as Chief Editors or Editors-in-Chief are concerned, the matter would be required to be considered purely from the perspective of the allegations made in the complaint. If the allegations are sufficient and specific, no benefit can be extended to such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief - If there are no specific and sufficient allegations, the matter would stand reinforced by reason of the fact that no presumption can be invoked against such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief. (Para 22) Aroon Purie v. State of Nct of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 894

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - Appeal against High Court quashed PMLA proceedings against 'Bribe Giver' - Allowed - So long as the amount is in the hands of a bribe giver, and till it does not get impressed with the requisite intent and is actually handed over as a bribe, it would definitely be untainted money. If the money is handed over without such intent, it would be a mere entrustment. If it is thereafter appropriated by the public servant, the offence would be of misappropriation or species thereof but certainly not of bribe. The crucial part therefore is the requisite intent to hand over the amount as bribe and normally such intent must necessarily be antecedent or prior to the moment the amount is handed over. Thus, the requisite intent would always be at the core before the amount is handed over. Such intent having been entertained well before the amount is actually handed over, the person concerned would certainly be involved in the process or activity connected with "proceeds of crime" including inter alia, the aspects of possession or acquisition thereof. By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime. The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such person. Directorate of Enforcement v. Padmanabhan Kishore, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 896

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - When the accused stand discharged of the scheduled offence, there could arise no question of they being prosecuted for illegal gain of property as a result of the criminal activity relating to the alleged scheduled offence. Indrani Patnaik v. Enforcement Directorate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 920

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 19(1), 21 - Non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault - Prompt and proper reporting of the commission of offence under the POCSO Act is of utmost importance and we have no hesitation to state that its failure on coming to know about the commission of any offence thereunder would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act. (Para 12-15, 22) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case - Supreme Court orders premature release of all 6 convicts. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Red Fort Attack case 2000 - Death penalty awarded to Lakshar-e-Toiba militant Mohammed Arif affirmed by dismissing Review Petition - Even after eschewing circumstances which were directly attributable to the CDRs relied upon by the prosecution, the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt his involvement in the crime in question - The suggestion that there is a possibility of retribution and rehabilitation, is not made out from and supported by any material on record - The aggravating circumstances evident from the record and specially the fact that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, completely outweigh the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as mitigating circumstances on record. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Registration Act, 1908; Section 89 - SLP against Madras High Court judgment holding that a registering authority cannot demand stamp duty to keep a copy of a sale certificate on the file of Book No.1 - Dismissed - Issue has been repeatedly settled and a consistent view has been followed for the last 150 years. Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(2) - Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. (Para 7) Delhi Development Authority v. Damini Wadhwa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(2) - There cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to the pending litigations. (Para 7.2) Delhi Development Authority v. Damini Wadhwa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The provisions of the R&R Act, 2013 which replaced the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have for the first time cast obligations upon the State to ensure that resettlement and rehabilitation is provided in addition to compensation. These rehabilitation and resettlement provisions relate not only to a right to employment for at least one member of the displaced family but also other monetary and tangible benefits, such as land for construction of houses, cash assistance for construction; transportation cost; provision for temporary displacement; annuity and/or cash payment in lieu of employment benefits, etc. Furthermore, by provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate provisions for the kind of public amenities which have to be provided, such as public health benefits, schools, community centres, roads and other basic necessities, have been obligated. All these are in furtherance of the displaced and the larger social justice obligations cast upon the State. (Para 43) Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 108 - Wherever there are existing provisions that are more beneficial or provide better benefits to displaced persons, such families and individuals have the choice or option to prefer either such policy or local law or the provisions of the R&R Act. (Para 42) Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Riot Victims - Supreme Court issues a slew of directions to the State for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of riot victims who have not yet been compensated - Also issues directions for revival of dormant riot cases. Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - It is true that the secured creditor is under an obligation to undertake the exercise and cross­check the description of the mortgaged property at the stage when the initial proceedings under Section 13(2) are initiated or in the later consequential proceedings, but at the same time, mere typographical error due to inadvertence which has not caused any prejudice to the borrowers, that in itself could not be considered to be the ground to annul the process held by the secured creditor which, in our view, is in due compliance with the requirement as contemplated under the provisions of Rules, 2002. (Para 37) Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 34 - Section 34 shall be applicable only in a case where the Debt Recovery Tribunal and/or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to decide the matter under the SARFAESI Act. The plaintiff was not challenging the sale/sale certificate. (Para 5.2) Leelamma Mathew v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 8 - Duty of the authorized officer to take all precautions before putting the secured asset to sell - Before effecting sale of the immovable property (secured assets) the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor and fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act the seller was bound to disclose any buyer any material defect in the property of which the buyer is not aware and which the buyer could not ordinarily discover. (Para 5.4) Leelamma Mathew v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside. State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 901

Service Law - Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 (Uttar Pradesh) - Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules - When the 1992 Rules specifically emphasized that, where in any year of recruitment, appointments were to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, regular appointments could not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was to be prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules - The seniority list which provided a higher seniority to the direct recruits is not sustainable in law. (Para 25) Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 953

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Specific Performance Suit - There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice. The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same. (Para 4.1) V.S. Ramakrishnan v. P.M. Muhammed Ali, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 935

Stamp Act, 1899 (West Bengal amendment); Section 47A - Objective of amendment - In case of under valuation of property, an aspect not uncommon in our country, where consideration may be passing through two modes – one the declared 22 price and the other undeclared component, the State should not be deprived of the revenue. Such transactions do not reflect the correct price in the document as something more has been paid through a different method. The objective is to take care of such a scenario so that the State revenue is not affected and the price actually obtainable in a free market should be capable of being stamped. If one may say, it is, in fact, a reflection on the manner in which the transfer of an immovable property takes place as the price obtainable in a transparent manner would be different. (Para 23) Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 942

Stamp Act, 1899 (West Bengal amendment); Section 47A - Public auction monitored by the court, the discretion would not be available to the Registering Authority under Section 47A - Public auction carried out through court process/receiver as that is the most transparent manner of obtaining the correct market value of the property - Registering Officer cannot have any reason to believe that the market value of the property was not duly set forth - Independent determination by a Registering Officer would not apply to a court sale but to a private transaction. (Para 22-31) Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 942

Stamp Act, 1899 (West Bengal amendment); Section 47A - The "reason to believe" of a Registering Officer has to be based on ground realities and not some whimsical determination. (Para 29) Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 942

Statement of Prosecutrix – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) – Sections 376 and 450 – Failure of Police to Send Seized Clothes to Forensic Laboratory – Once the court believes the version of a survivor of sexual assault, that is sufficient to establish an offence punishable under Section 376, IPC – Failure of the police to send seized articles to the forensic science laboratory would not affect the outcome in such a case – Held, there was no merit in the appeal by the appellant-accused – Appeal dismissed. Somai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 989

Statutory Contract - A contract containing prescribed terms and conditions being mandatory under the Statute, results in the contract becoming a Statutory Contract. (Para 19, 26) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Subordinate Legislation - Subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute. Subordinate legislation which is in aid of the parent statute has to be read in harmony with the parent statute. Subordinate legislation cannot be interpreted in such a manner that parent statute may become otiose or nugatory. (Para 10) Sansera Engineering Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 997

Tenancy - In a revision / appeal preferred by the tenant, who has suffered an eviction decree, the appellate / revisional court while staying the eviction decree can direct the tenant to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the tenancy premises upon the contractual rate of rent and such compensation for use and occupation of the premises would be at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. Sumer Corporation v. Vijay Anant Gangan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 936

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Agreement to Sell - Agreement to Sell by itself does not confer any right, title, or interest. (Para 7) Delhi Development Authority v. Damini Wadhwa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913

UGC Regulations 2018 - Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 - Vice Chancellor Appointment - Appeal against Uttarakhand High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandar as Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University - Dismissed - (1) no advertisement was issued before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor (2) His name was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (3) His selection was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and (4) he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee - Even while making the appointment of the first ViceChancellor of the University, the procedure required for selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye- Appellant might have a very good/bright academic career, however it cannot be said that he was the most meritorious person as his case was not compared with other meritorious persons - The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University is held to be illegal and de hors the statutory requirements under Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940

UGC Regulations 2018 - The post of ViceChancellor of the University is a very important post and therefore the most meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University from and amongst the other eligible meritorious candidates out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee - The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be the persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges - While preparing the panel, the Search Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence etc. and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The reason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is compared with other eligible meritorious candidates who were part of the panel recommended by the Search Committee. (Para 12, 17) Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940

UGC Regulations 2018 - Where there is a conflict between the State University Act and the UGC Regulations, 2018 to the extent State legislation is repugnant, the UGC Regulations, 2018 shall prevail. (Para 16) Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949
2. Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 953
3. Aniruthan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 960
4. Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Kutumb Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 930
5. Anubhav Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 980
6. Aroon Purie v. State of Nct of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 894
7. Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915
8. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 906
9. B.A. Umesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 907
10. Balu Krishna Chavan v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 932
11. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941
12. Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. v. UPS Freight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 938
13. Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Educational and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 976
14. Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956
15. Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951
16. Chandan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 947
17. Chowgule & Company Ltd. v. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 919
18. Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931
19. Commissioner of Income Tax - I v. Balak Capital Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 982
20. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 991
21. Delhi Development Authority v. Damini Wadhwa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913
22. Directorate of Enforcement v. Padmanabhan Kishore, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 896
23. Divya Bharti v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 961
24. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 909
25. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. B. Sunil Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912
26. Food Corporation of India v. Abhijith Paul, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 975
27. Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955
28. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 893
29. Gurdev Singh v. Harvinder Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963
30. Hemant Narayan Rasne v. Commissioner and Administrator of Pune Municipal Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 895
31. In Re Perry Kansangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 905
32. Indrani Patnaik v. Enforcement Directorate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 920
33. Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969
34. Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945
35. Intelligence Officer, Thiruvananthapuram v. K.K. Naushad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 978
36. Jai Karan Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 992
37. Jain P. Jose v. Santhosh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 979
38. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922
39. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. JSW Energy Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 981
40. Kiran Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 904
41. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 964
42. Leelamma Mathew v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973
43. M.S. Radhakrishnan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 918
44. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916
45. Maringmei Acham v. M. Maringmei Khuripou, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 958
46. Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 988
47. Mohammed Sadiq v. Deepak Manglani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 957
48. Mohan Chandra P. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 952
49. Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 925
50. Mohd. Abid v. Ravi Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 921
51. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 902
52. MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966
53. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 995
54. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 927
55. Narayana Medical College v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929
56. Naveen v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 897
57. Nepal Das v. High Court of Calcutta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 946
58. OCL India Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 911
59. P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 923
60. Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971
61. Pioneer Overseas Corporation USA v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 944
62. Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940
63. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954
64. Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926
65. Raj Process Equipments and Systems v. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 928
66. Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 986
67. Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993
68. Randeep Singh v. State of U T Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 962
69. Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933
70. Regional Director / Recovery Officer v. Nitinbhai Vallabhai Panchasara, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 983
71. Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 942
72. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Vijayan A., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 950
73. Revenue Divisional Officer v. Ismail Bhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 984
74. S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903
75. S. Shankaraiah v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 934
76. Sansera Engineering Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 997
77. Sarita Swami v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 985
78. Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910
79. Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968
80. Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. C.I.T., Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959
81. Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N. Hemalatha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 970
82. Somai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 989
83. State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 908
84. State Bank of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 917
85. State of Haryana v. Daya Nand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 948
86. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Angejo Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 990
87. State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965
88. State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924
89. State of Madhya Pradesh v. SEW Construction Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 977
90. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 898
91. State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 901
92. State of Uttarakhand v. Nalanda College of Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 943
93. Sumer Corporation v. Vijay Anant Gangan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 936
94. Suneetha Narreddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 996
95. Suresh G. Ramnani v. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 939
96. TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987
97. Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937
98. Union of India v. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998
99. V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 994
100. V.S. Ramakrishnan v. P.M. Muhammed Ali, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 935
101. Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967
102. VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt. Ltd. v. Kay Ellen Arnold, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 914
103. Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974
104. X v. M Mahender Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 899
105. X v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 972
106. Yashpal Chopra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 900