Supreme Court Quadrimester Digest 2022 [ January To April]

Administrative Law - Appeal challenging adverse Remarks made in the Allahabad HC judgment regarding a Statutory authority - Allowed - Even if the High Court found that the impugned actions of the authorities concerned, particularly of the appellant, had not been strictly in conformity with law or were irregular or were illegal or even perverse, such findings, by themselves, were not leading to an inference as corollary that there had been any deliberate action or omission on the part of the Assessing Authority or the Registering Authority; or that any 'tactics' were adopted. Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Administrative Law - CBDT Departmental Examination - Grace mark policy - The benefit of the grace marks was not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category - Only in a case where any candidate belonging to any category is marginally failing to pass the examination, he is/was to be allowed the grace marks so as to allow him to obtain the minimum passing marks required and that too by allowing upto five grace marks - It was never meant for a person, who has passed in his own category. Union of India v. Mukesh Kumar Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 420

Administrative Law - Every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide - For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist. (Para 13, 16) Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Administrative Law - For holding the action of the Executive to be arbitrary, there must be a factual basis. (Para 13) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Importance of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the affected party in any administrative or quasi­ judicial proceedings. (Para 28) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Importance of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the affected party in any administrative or quasi­judicial proceedings. (Para 28) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Administrative Law - The requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate. (Para 23) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986 - Appeal against Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment setting aside the Full bench judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal - Dismissed - We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on the procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986; Section 26 - Once there is a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman and the third Member/Chairman was required to give his own decision upon such a reference. However, the matter is not required to be referred to the Full Bench. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 25 - Chairman could pass an order of transfer under Section 25 of the Act suo motu. (Para 8) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 25 - Any decision of Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. (Para 16) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Admissions - While generally admissions of fact by counsel are binding, neither the client nor the court is bound by admissions as to matters of law. (Para 24-25) Employees State Insurance Co. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Advocate Commissioners - The Advocate Commissioner is not a new concept. The advocates are appointed as Court Commissioner to perform diverse administrative and ministerial work as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 36) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Advocates - Role of the advocate as being an officer of the court - An advocate is a guardian of constitutional morality and justice equally with the Judge. He has an important duty as that of a Judge. He bears responsibility towards the society and is expected to act with utmost sincerity and commitment to the cause of justice. He has a duty to the court first. As an officer of the court, he owes allegiance to a higher cause and cannot indulge in consciously misstating the facts or for that matter conceal any material fact within his knowledge - An advocate should be diligent and his conduct should conform to the requirements of the law by which he plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. As an officer of the court, he is under a higher obligation to uphold the rule of law and justice system. (Para 37 - 39) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Affidavits - Once an affidavit has been filed which is on the face of it false to the knowledge of the executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given. (Para 16) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi, 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Affidavits - Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheets of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer an oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such a solemn statement made on oath. (Para 17) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi, 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (Rajasthan) - Section 9 - It cannot be said to be a mandatory statutory obligation of the Market Committees to provide shop/land/platform on rent/lease. (Para 9) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Amendment - If power to amend or modify or relax a notification and/or order exists, the notification and/or order may be amended and/or modified as many times, as may be necessary. A statement made by counsel in Court would not prevent the authority concerned from making amendments and/or modifications provided such amendments and/or modifications were as per the procedure prescribed by law. (Para 47) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Amendment - Whenever the challenge is to the amended provisions, the scope of enquiry, inter alia, ought to be as to whether the same is in consonance with the Principal Act, achieve the object and purpose of the Principal Act and are otherwise just, rational and reasonable. (Para 21) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Anganwadi workers (AWW) and Anganwadi helpers (AWH) - It is high time that the Central Government and State Governments take serious note of the plight of AWWs and AWHs who are expected to render such important services to the society - They are being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central Government. (Para 20) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Anticipatory Bail - SLP Against Madras HC Judgment dismissing anticipatory bail with some observations about requirement of custodial interrogation- Dismissed - High Court, after having found no case for grant of pre-arrest bail, has otherwise not given any such direction of mandatory nature - Observations are essentially of the reasons assigned by the High Court in declining the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Anticipatory bail granted to Trinamool Congress leader Sheikh Sufiyan in a case relating to the murder of a BJP supporter during the West Bengal post -poll violence. Sk. Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 146

Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 30, 33 - Scope of interference by courts - A Court does not sit in appeal over an Award passed by an Arbitrator and the only grounds on which it can be challenged are those that have been specified in Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, namely, when there is an error on the face of the Award or when the learned Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings. (Para 10-15) Atlanta Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which dismissed appeal against interim award of the Arbitral tribunal holding that JDIL was not a party to the arbitration agreement and must be deleted from the array of parties - Allowed - The interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated because of: (i) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the application for discovery and inspection filed by ONGC; (ii) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to determine the legal foundation for the application of the group of companies doctrine; and (iii) The decision of the arbitral tribunal that it would decide upon the applications filed by ONGC only after the plea of jurisdiction was disposed of. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - When two or more Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement, the parties might, by agreement, decide to refer all disputes to any one Court to the exclusion of all other Courts, which might otherwise have had jurisdiction to decide the disputes. The parties cannot, however, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a Court which inherently lacked jurisdiction. (Para 47) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Only if the agreement of the parties was construed to provide for seat/place of arbitration in India, would Part-I of the 1996 Act be applicable. If the seat/place were outside India, Part-I would not apply, even though the venue of a few sittings may have been in India, or the cause of action may have arisen in India. (Para 36) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seat and Venue - Sittings at various places are relatable to venue. It cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration, which has a different connotation. (Para 44, 45) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Special leave petition against an order of the Calcutta High Court, allowing an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator - Allowed - Calcutta High Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ; Section 16, 34, 37 - An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34 - In the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, the court must have due deference to the grounds which have weighed with the tribunal in holding that it lacks jurisdiction having regard to the object and spirit underlying the statute which entrusts the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction - The decision of the tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction is not conclusive because it is subject to an appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(a). However, in the exercise of this appellate power, the court must be mindful of the fact that the statute has entrusted the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction with the purpose of facilitating the efficacy of arbitration as an institutional mechanism for the resolution of disputes. (Para 34 - 39) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Arbitration application decided and disposed of after a period of four years by Telangana High Court - Very sorry state of affairs - Registrar General of the High Court directed to submit a detailed report/statement pointing out how many Section 11 applications are pending before the High Court and from which year. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - The arbitration applications for appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated. (Para 2) Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - While dealing with petition under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non arbitrability are plainly arguable. In such case, the issue of non arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. (Para 11) Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - A party to the arbitration agreement can appoint an arbitrator even after an Arbitration Petition has been filed by the other party before the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator if the party has not been given due notice of the same. (Para 16) Durga Welding Works v. Chief Engineer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) and 2(1)(e) - An application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule - An arbitral tribunal constituted as per an arbitration clause before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will lose its mandate if it violates the neutrality clause under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule, which were incorporated through the 2015 amendment. (Para 8, 9) Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16 - Party taking the plea of absence of jurisdiction is required to establish the grounds on which it set about to establish its plea. (Para 49) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 17 - Appeal against Delhi HC order which confirmed the interim order passed by Arbitral Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit the rental amount from March, 2020 onwards and up to December, 2021 - Partly allowed - No order could have been passed by the Tribunal by way of interim measure on the applications filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act in a case where there is a serious dispute with respect to the liability of the rental amounts to be paid, which is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or considered by the Arbitral Tribunal - The appellant will therefore have to deposit the entire rental amount except the period for which there was complete closure due to lockdown. Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson and Company Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 - Group of companies doctrine - An arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties - A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory - In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the contract. (Para 18, 23, 26) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31 - Post-award interest can be granted by an Arbitrator on the interest amount awarded. (Para 4-6) UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7) - Arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component - The word sum used under Section 31(7) includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims. Indian Oil Corporation v. U.B. Engineering, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - An error in interpretation of a contract in a case where there is valid and lawful submission of arbitral disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal is an error within jurisdiction. (Para 45) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Appeal against Punjab & Haryana HC order which allowed to proceed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount - Order passed by the High Court permitting the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre­deposit of 75% of the awarded amount is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Arbitral award can be set aside by the court if the court finds the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award - The award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence. (Para 15) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Limitation Act, 1961; Section 5 - Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Act 1996. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Patent Illegality - An Arbitral Tribunal being a creature of contract, is bound to act in terms of the contract under which it is constituted. An award can be said to be patently illegal where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to act in terms of the contract or has ignored the specific terms of a contract. (Para 44) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The Court does not sit in appeal over the award made by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Court does not ordinarily interfere with interpretation made by the Arbitral Tribunal of a contractual provision, unless such interpretation is patently unreasonable or perverse. Where a contractual provision is ambiguous or is capable of being interpreted in more ways than one, the Court cannot interfere with the arbitral award, only because the Court is of the opinion that another possible interpretation would have been a better one. (Para 46) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The court may condone delay of a period up to thirty days in filing of the objections if it is satisfied that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause from making an application under Section 34(1) of the Act. (Para 10) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The principle that a court while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the Arbitrator for a fresh decision would be applicable where the Appellate Court decides the application under Section 34 of the Act on merits - Even in a case where the award is set aside under Section 34 of the Act on whatever the grounds which may be available under Section 34 of the Act, in that case the parties can still agree for the fresh arbitration may be by the same arbitrator - When both the parties agreed to set aside the award and to remit the matter to the learned Sole Arbitrator for fresh reasoned Award, it is not open to contend that the matter may not be and/or ought not to have been remanded to the same sole arbitrator. (Para 8) Mutha Construction v. Strategic Brand Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 163

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - A harmonious reading of Section 31, 34(1), 34(2A) and 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, make it clear that in appropriate cases, on the request made by a party, Court can give an opportunity to the arbitrator to resume the arbitral proceedings for giving reasons or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning in support of a finding, which is already rendered in the award. But at the same time, when it prima facie appears that there is a patent illegality in the award itself, by not recording a finding on a contentious issue, in such cases, Court may not accede to the request of a party for giving an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - If there are no findings on the contentious issues in the award or if any findings are recorded ignoring the material evidence on record, the same are acceptable grounds for setting aside the award itself. Under guise of either additional reasons or filling up the gaps in the reasoning, the power conferred on the Court cannot be relegated to the Arbitrator. In absence of any finding on contentious issue, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - Merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. The discretionary power conferred under Section 34(4) of the Act, is to be exercised where there is inadequate reasoning or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning, in support of the findings which are already recorded in the award. Under guise of additional reasons and filling up the gaps in the reasoning, no award can be remitted to the Arbitrator, where there are no findings on the contentious issues in the award. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - The discretion vested with the Court for remitting the matter to Arbitral Tribunal to give an opportunity to resume the proceedings or not. The words "where it is appropriate" itself indicate that it is the discretion to be exercised by the Court, to remit the matter when requested by a party. When application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act, the same is to be considered keeping in mind the grounds raised in the application under Section 34(1) of the Act by the party, who has questioned the award of the Arbitral Tribunal and the grounds raised in the application filed under Section 34(4) of the Act and the reply thereto. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - An award can be set aside only if the award is against the public policy of India. The award can be set aside under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration Act, if the award is found to be contrary to, (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal - High Court cannot enter into the merits of the claim in an appeal under Section 37. (Para 8) Haryana Tourism Ltd. v. Kandhari Beverages Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - Reference to wrong provision, as long as power exists would not matter. Premier Sea Foods v. Caravel Shipping Services, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The jurisdiction conferred on Courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is fairly narrow, when it comes to the scope of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is all the more circumscribed - if there are two plausible interpretations of the terms and conditions of the contract, then no fault can be found, if the learned Arbitrator proceeds to accept one interpretation as against the other. (Para 15-21) UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 37 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 37 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause - A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved. (Para 17) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 37 - The High Court has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the same Arbitrator unless it is consented by both the parties that the matter be remanded to the same Arbitrator -The High Court either may relegate the parties for fresh arbitration or to consider the appeal on merits on the basis of the material available on record within the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction under Section 37. (Para 3) Dr. A. Parthasarathy v. E Springs Avenues Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 199

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 - The Section has obviously been enacted to prevent the parties from being dragged into proceedings in different Courts, when more than one Court has jurisdiction. Where with respect to any arbitration agreement, any application under Part I of the A&C Act has been made in a Court, that Court alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement, and the arbitral proceedings, would have to be made in that Court and in no other Court, unless, of course, the Court in which the first application had been instituted, inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain that application. The Section which starts with a non obstante clause, is binding irrespective of any other law for the time being in force, and irrespective of any other provision in Part I of the A&C Act. (Para 31) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 and 11(6) - Section 42 cannot possibly have any application to an application under Section 11(6), which necessarily has to be made before a High Court, unless the earlier application was also made in a High Court. (Para 32) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Architects Act, 1972 - Section 21, 45 - Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 - The Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) or even otherwise. It is only in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central Government under Section 45(1) would become necessary. (Para 15) Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Section 15 - AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court martial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever. It would be permissible to interfere with such a finding when it involves a wrong decision on a question of law - AFT would be justified in allowing an appeal against conviction by a court­martial when there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice. (Para 27) Union of India v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Arms Act, 1950; Section 27 - Supreme Court Patna High Court judgment which modified the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants- accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code to Section 324 IPC and confirming their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Army Act, 1950 - Section 125 - Section 125 not only recognizes that an element of discretion has been vested in the designated officer, but it also postulates that the designated officer should have decided that the proceedings be instituted by the court -martial in which event the court -martial would take place. (Para 44) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Army Act, 1950 - Section 125 - The criminal court will have jurisdiction to try a case against an army personnel if the Commanding Officer does not exercise the discretion under Section 125 of the Army Act to initiate court -martial with respect to the offence - If the designated officer does not exercise this discretion to institute proceedings before a court -martial, the Army Act would not interdict the exercise of jurisdiction by the ordinary criminal court. (Para 30) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Army Act, 1950 - Section 70 - The ingredients of Section 70 are: (i) The offence must be committed by a person subject to the Army Act; (ii) The offence must be committed against a person who is not subject to military, naval or air force law; and (iii) The offence must be of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder or rape. (Para 43) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Army Law - Appeal against Armed Forces Tribunal order of conviction and dismissal from service of former Lt Gen SK Sahni for allegations relating to procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation - Allowed - AFT has specifically come to a finding that the respondent has not committed any fraud or did not commit any act which resulted in actual loss or wrongful gain to any person. We are unable to appreciate as to on what basis the learned AFT comes to a conclusion that the acts lead to an inference that the attempts were made to cause a wrongful gain. Union of India v. Lt. Gen SK Sahni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)) - The Jurisdiction of the Atiyat Court would be limited to the disputes relating to Atiyat grants as defined in the Enquiries Act. (Para 165) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Bail - Appeal against Allahabad HC granting bail to an accused - Allowed - Order of High Court granting bail to co-accused was earlier set aside - Reasons which have weighed with this Court in cancelling the bail which was granted to the co-accused would equally apply to the case of the first respondent which also arises out of the same first information report and incident. Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki v. Raju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Bail - While granting bail, the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 85

Banking - The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non. (Para 11) United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Banking Law - Bank's Liability for acts of employees - Acts of bank/post office employees, when done during their course of employment, are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person who is damnified by the fraud and wrongful acts of the officers of the bank/post office. Post office / bank, can and is entitled to proceed against the officers for the loss caused due to the fraud etc., but this would not absolve them from their liability if the employee involved was acting in the course of his employment and duties. (Para 37) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Banking Law - Bank's Liability for acts of employees - What is relevant is whether the crime, in the form of fraud etc., was perpetrated by the servant/employee during the course of his employment. Once this is established, the employer would be liable for the employee's wrongful act, even if they amount to a crime. Whether the fraud is committed during the course of employment would be a question of fact that needs to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 38) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Bar Council of India Rules - Provisional enrolment - Persons engaged in other employments can be permitted to provisionally enrol with the concerned Bar Council and to appear in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and that upon clearing the AIBE, they can be given a period of 6 months to decide whether to join legal profession or continue with the other job. Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 414

Blacklisting - "Debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission. It is for the State or appropriate authority to pass an order of blacklisting/debarment in the facts and circumstances of the case - "Debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. (Para 8.7 and 9.1) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Blacklisting - Guidelines issued by Odisha Government that blacklisting period per offence shall be limited to three years subject to an overall maximum cumulative period of ten years for multiple offences - Disapproved - Duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. Seriousness of the lapse and the incident and/or gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to the incident should be the relevant considerations. In a given case, it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse and/or negligence, a major incident would have taken place. In such a case, it may be the contractor's first offence, in such a case, the period/duration of the blacklisting/banning can be more than three years. However, as the said guidelines are not under challenge, we rest the matter there and leave it to the State Government to suitably amend and/or modify the said office memorandum. However, what we have observed above can be a guide while determining the period of debarment/blacklisting. (Para 9.1) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Blacklisting - Show cause notice was issued upon the contractor by which the contractor was called upon to show cause why he be not blacklisted; the show cause notice was replied to by the contractor and thereafter, after considering the material on record and the reply submitted by the contractor and having found the serious lapses which led to a serious incident in which one person died and eleven others were injured, the State Government took a conscious decision to blacklist the contractor. Therefore, it cannot be said the order blacklisting the contractor was in violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 8.5) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 - Regulation 116 - The width and amplitude of Regulation 116 cannot be restricted by interpreting the word 'deviation' as having lesser scope than exemption. 'Deviation' from the Regulations would amount to either exemption or relaxation. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Division Bench that the order dated 13.02.2019 cannot be said to have been issued beyond the power conferred by Regulation 116 of 2010 Regulations. Muhammed A.A. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Central Excise and Customs Commissionerates Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officer and Examiner) Group 'B' Posts Recruitment Rules 2016 - The absence of a provision for filling up a post in the Commissionerate by absorption of persons belonging to the cadre of another Commissionerate clearly indicates that the cadre is treated as a posting unit and there is no occasion to absorb a person from outside the cadre who holds a similar or comparable post. (Para 32) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise could not have invoked the powers under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 for confiscation of land, buildings etc., when on such date, the said Rule 173Q(2) was not in the Statute books, having been omitted by a notification dated 12.05.2000. (Para 47) Punjab National Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 56 - In terms of the principal part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, the interest would be awarded at the rate of 6 per cent. The award of interest at 9 per cent would be attracted only if the matter was covered by the proviso to the said Section 56 - Wherever a statute specifies or regulates the interest, the interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute - Wherever a statute, on the other hand, is silent about the rate of interest and there is no express bar for payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds. (Para 18-19) Union of India v. Willowood Chemicals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - An injunction action can be initiated even after a certificate is issued under the Cinematograph Act. The Court may examine the film and judge whether its public display, breaches the norms of decency or contravenes the law. A film which is defamatory or indecent or breaches copyright cannot be allowed to be exhibited only because a certificate has been issued. The examples are of course illustrative. (Para 10) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Guidelines for certification of films - A book or a film that illustrates the consequences of a social evil must necessarily show that social evil. A film that carries a message and depicts social circumstances of a group of underprivileged women is not impermissible. (Para 11) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - SLP Against Bombay High Court order refusing to grant interim injunction against release of the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" - Dismissed - The film certificate issued by the CBFC prima facie shows that the film is not defamatory. Prima facie, it appears that the movie is an artistic expression within the parameters of law. (Para 25) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - The fact that the film has been certified by CBFC, which comprises of a body of experts prima facie shows compliance with the requirements of the guidelines. (Para 13) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Circumstantial Evidence - Five golden principles regarding appreciation of evidence when the case of the prosecution hinges on the circumstantial evidence discussed. (Para 22) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Civil Litigation - Eviction order passed in 1989 yet not permitted to be executed by the judgment debtor by initiating the proceedings one after another - This is a clear example of the abuse of the process of law and the Court and not permitting the judgment -creditor to get the benefit under the decree which is passed in his favour in the year 1989 - Special Leave Petitions dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs.25,000/ -. M. Chinnamuthu v. Kamaleshan @ Shanmugam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209

Civil Litigation - Judgment creditor is entitled to enjoy the fruit of the litigation within a reasonable time - In our justice delivery system, the real litigation starts only after the decree is passed and the judgment -creditor has to wait for number of years for enjoying the fruit of the decree and the litigation. If such a delayed tactics is permitted, the litigant would lose the confidence in the justice delivery system. Every litigation has to put to an end at a particular time. M. Chinnamuthu v. Kamaleshan @ Shanmugam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209

Civil Suit - Adverse Possession - Suit for declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership – Maintainable. Darshan Kaur Bhatia v. Ramesh Gandhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Civil Suit - Adverse Possession - Suit for declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership – Maintainable. Darshan Kaur Bhatia v. Ramesh Gandhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Civil Suit - If a party to a suit does not appear in the witness box to state their own case and does not offer themselves to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up is not correct. (Para 12) Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58

Civil Suit - If the title to the property was the basis of the relief of possession, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief. (Para 11) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Civil Suit - Injunction - Once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. (Para 9) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Civil Suit - The rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences i.e., on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day when he initiated the proceedings, therefore, rights of the parties have to be examined as on the said day. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Co -operative Societies Rules, 1961 (Maharashtra) - Rule 107(14) - Once the borrower failed to apply to the Recovery Officer to set aside the auction sale on the grounds of material irregularity, mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the auction sale within a period of thirty days from the date of sale of immovable property, thereafter it was not open for the borrower to challenge the sale on the ground of material irregularity. (Para 7.1) Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Munjaji, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 183

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Section 3 - What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government were the coal mines - The ownership of the land was immaterial. If the land fell within the definition of the expression "mine" under the Nationalisation Act, the same stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1). (Para 13) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 350

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Sections 2(h) and 3(1) - Focus is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is - Even the lands and buildings used solely for the location of the management, sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff were also included in the definition of the word "mine". (Para 15) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 350

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the procedure adopted by the Execution Court that did not invite objections under Order XXI Rule 34 from Judgment debtor to draft sale deed produced by Decree holder - Allowed - Clearly contravenes the salutary provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 - The objections of the appellant to the draft sale deed to be considered. Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution Proceedings - It is an old saying that the difficulties of the litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. The evil was noticed as far back in 1872 by the Privy Council in relation to the difficulties faced by the decree holder in execution of the decree. After more than a century, there has been no improvement and still the decree holder faces the same problem what was being faced in the past. A litigant coming to Court seeking relief is not interested in receiving a paper decree when he succeeds in establishing his case. What he primarily wants from the Court of Justice is the relief and if it is a money decree, he wants that money what he is entitled for in terms of the decree, must be satisfied by the judgment debtor at the earliest possible without fail keeping in view the reasonable restrictions/rights which are available to the judgment debtor under the provisions of the statute or the code, as the case may be. (Para 3) Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Plaintiff is dominus litus, and they cannot be compelled to seek relief against anyone. (Para 8.16) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - While procedure is said to be the handmaiden of justice and substantial justice must prevail and the former may take the backseat, failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree holder realising the fruits of the decree. (Para 1) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - While procedure is said to be the handmaiden of justice and substantial justice must prevail and the former may take the backseat, failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree holder realising the fruits of the decree. (Para 1) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - High Court dismissed an application for additional evidence filed by the appellant to bring on record certain sale deeds and certified copy of the judgments and awards passed in other land acquisition cases, which he contended, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value -Allowed - It was a case of awarding of fair compensation to the land owner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - There was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have allowed the application for additional evidence. Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - The appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances - Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed - The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause - The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. (Para 4) Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 27 - Though a party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, the same has to be within the four corners of law - The party has to establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge or could not even after due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. (Para 10) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 33 - The Rule clothes the appellate court with an extra ordinary power, which however is a rare jurisdiction. It is to reach justice in the special facts of a case. It is not an ordinary rule to be applied across the board in all the appeals. In fact, the principle is interalia no doubt that even if there is no appeal by any of the parties in the proceedings, an order can be passed in his favour in the appeal carried by the other side. (Para 13) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 374

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 3 - Non -joining of necessary parties is fatal. (Para 18) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order II Rule 2,3 - Joinder of causes of action - Order II Rule 3 does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit. The failure to join together all claims arising from a cause of action will be visited with consequences proclaimed in Order II Rule 2 - The Code of Civil Procedure indeed permits a plaintiff to join causes of action but it does not compel a plaintiff to do so. (Para 16, 17) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - A mere clever drafting would not permit the plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. (Para 10) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw SC 143

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959; Sections 250, 257 - Appeal against High Court which allowed application filed by defendants seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit before the Civil Court would be barred in view of Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Allowed - High Court did not appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had earlier approached the Revenue Authority / Tehsildar where he was non­suited on the ground that Revenue Authority / Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to title to the suit property - Defendants cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts. Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Order XXIII Rule 3A - At the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the only thing which was required to be considered is whether the suit would be maintainable or not and that the suit challenging the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC - Court is not required to consider on merits the validity of the Compromise Decree. (Para 6) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw SC 143

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint - Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected - The plaint cannot be rejected partially. (Para 7, 7.1, 7.4) Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security and the appellant had no right to encash it - In essence, the suit attempts to frustrate the possibility of the appellant initiating action under the provision of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque - Such reliefs are barred by law - Revisional court was just in allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security and the appellant had no right to encash it - In essence, the suit attempts to frustrate the possibility of the appellant initiating action under the provision of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque - Such reliefs are barred by law - Revisional court was just in allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the procedure adopted by the Execution Court that did not invite objections under Order XXI Rule 34 from Judgment debtor to draft sale deed produced by Decree holder - Allowed - Clearly contravenes the salutary provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 - The objections of the appellant to the draft sale deed to be considered. Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution - While it is true that the court must be diligent in the matter of executing a decree passed after adjudication which spans a long period of time, it is also the duty of the court to execute the decree as it is and in accordance with law - Though, it is indeed open to the executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the decree. (Para 11, 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution - While it is true that the court must be diligent in the matter of executing a decree passed after adjudication which spans a long period of time, it is also the duty of the court to execute the decree as it is and in accordance with law - Though, it is indeed open to the executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the decree. (Para 11, 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - It is the duty of the court to cause the draft to be served upon the judgment debtor and to apply its mind and to make alterations in the draft, if needed, when objections are filed - It will be thereafter that the decree holder is to deliver it to the court with the alterations if any made by the court, on proper stamp paper, if required and the execution of the document is effected by the court or the officer appointed. (Para 10 -11) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - It is the duty of the court to cause the draft to be served upon the judgment debtor and to apply its mind and to make alterations in the draft, if needed, when objections are filed - It will be thereafter that the decree holder is to deliver it to the court with the alterations if any made by the court, on proper stamp paper, if required and the execution of the document is effected by the court or the officer appointed. (Para 10-11) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - Order XXI Rule 34 cannot be diluted and any such departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further litigation. (Para 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 34 - Order XXI Rule 34 cannot be diluted and any such departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further litigation. (Para 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXIII Rule 3A - A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable. (Para 8) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad, 2022 LiveLaw SC 143

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIX - Interim injunctions - While considering the question of grant of interim injunction, the courts are required to consider the three tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury .(Para 36) Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIX Rule 2­A - contempt of a civil nature can be made out under Order XXXIX Rule 2­A CPC not when there has been mere "disobedience", but only when there has been "wilful disobedience". The allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere "disobedience" but "wilful" and "conscious" - The power must be exercised with caution rather than on mere probability. Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXVII Rule 3 - Summary Suit - Grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception - Even if there remains a reasonable doubt about the probability of defence, sterner or higher conditions as stated above could be imposed while granting leave but, denying the leave would be ordinarily countenanced only in such cases where the defendant fails to show any genuine triable issue and the Court finds the defence to be frivolous or vexatious. (Para 17) B.L. Kashyap and Sons v. JMS Steels & Power, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 10 - Application under Section 10 CPC , by its very nature, requires immediate consideration and before any other steps in the suit - If the prayer made in the application moved under Section 10 were to be granted, the trial of the subject suit is not to be proceeded with at all. (Para 26) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Second Appeal - Perversity in arriving at a factual finding gives rise to a substantial question of law, attracting intervention of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC - There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a question of fact provided the court is satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below stood vitiated by non -consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach to the matter i.e. that the findings of fact are found to be perverse. Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Second Appeal - Question of law ought to have been framed under Section 100 of the said Code. Even if the question of law had not been framed at the stage of admission, at least before the deciding the case the said question of law ought to have been framed. (Para 22) Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 144 - Appeal against Division Bench direction that the State shall be at liberty to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners - Dismissed - By applying Section 144 CPC also, the amount paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been set aside by the Division Bench is required to be refunded/returned by the original writ petitioners. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Consent Decree - The Court can entertain an Application under Section 151 of the CPC for alterations/ modification of the consent decree if the same is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding. (Para 13) Ajanta LLP v. Casio, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Even assuming there is a mistake, a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree. (Para 13) Ajanta LLP v. Casio, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Consent Decree - A judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the Court at the end of a long drawn out fight. A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment. A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. (Para 12) Ajanta LLP v. Casio, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 153A - Order XLI Rule 41 - An application before the Trial Court for correction of a decree could be maintained only if the appeal was to be decided by the High Court under Rule 11, Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. B. Boraiah v. M.G. Thirthaprasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 153A - The Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for correction of decree passed by the High Court in the first appeal and cross objection - In such a case, the application for correction could be maintained only before the High Court where the decree has been finally confirmed. B. Boraiah v. M.G. Thirthaprasad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 34 - S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), award of interest is a discretionary exercise, steeped in equitable considerations. Interest is payable for different purposes such as compensatory, penal, etc. (Para 12.1) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 44A - Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Section 5 - The expression "District Court" in Section 44A for execution of foreign decree, will be construed to be a Court holding ordinary original civil jurisdiction in terms of its pecuniary limits as being notified under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966. (Para 27) Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 44A - Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Section 5 - The High Court of Delhi in exercise of its original jurisdiction is a competent Court to entertain a petition for executing a money decree (in excess of Rs.20 lakhs) of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code. (Para 28) Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 64(2) and Order XXI Rule 58 - To get the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the CPC, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. (Para 4) Dokala Hari Babu v. Kotra Appa Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 342

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of the proceedings. (Para 26.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 159 - Mere delay to send FIR to jurisdictional magistrate cannot be sole factor to reject prosecution's case. (Para 26, 27) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. (Para 25) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against High Court order setting aside criminal proceedings on the ground that taking cognizance by magistrate was barred by limitation - Allowed - The High Court made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009 - Rejected the contention that Sarah Mathew's case requires reconsideration on the ground that some of the factors related with Chapter XXXVI CrPC have not been considered. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against High Court order setting aside criminal proceedings on the ground that taking cognizance by magistrate was barred by limitation - Allowed - The High Court made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009 - Rejected the contention that Sarah Mathew's case requires reconsideration on the ground that some of the factors related with Chapter XXXVI CrPC have not been considered. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant -With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181 (Para 27 -29)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - Default Bail - Filing of a charge -sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 CrPC - An accused cannot demand release on default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days. (Para 10) Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - Default Bail - There is no additional requirement of cognizance having to be taken within the period prescribed under proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC, failing which the accused would be entitled to default bail, even after filing of the charge -sheet within the statutory period. (Para 15) Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - The accused continues to be in the custody of the Magistrate till such time cognizance is taken by the court trying the offence, which assumes custody of the accused for the purpose of remand after cognizance is taken. Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Magistrate to have due regard to both the reports, the initial report which was submitted under Section 173(2) as well as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). It is thereafter that the Magistrate would have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused have committed an offence. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Magistrate to have due regard to both the reports, the initial report which was submitted under Section 173(2) as well as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). It is thereafter that the Magistrate would have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused have committed an offence. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(2) - Evidentiary Value of a Final Report - Final Report, is nothing but a piece of evidence. It forms a mere opinion of the investigating officer on the materials collected by him. He takes note of the offence and thereafter, conducts an investigation to identify the offender, the truth of which can only be decided by the court - The final report itself cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer. (Para 25, 37) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - The evolution of legal position and norms for dealing with the question of sentencing and the connotations of 'special reasons' for awarding death sentence discussed - Court has found it justified to have capital punishment on the statute to serve as deterrent as also in due response to the society's call for appropriate punishment in appropriate cases but at the same time, the principles of penology have evolved to balance the other obligations of the society, i.e., of preserving the human life, be it of accused, unless termination thereof is inevitable and is to serve the other societal causes and collective conscience of society. This has led to the evolution of 'rarest of rare test' and then, its appropriate operation with reference to 'crime test' and 'criminal test'. The delicate balance expected of the judicial process has also led to another mid -way approach, in curtailing the rights of remission or premature release while awarding imprisonment for life, particularly when dealing with crimes of heinous nature. (Para 40) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - When the accused is not shown to be a person having criminal antecedents and is not a hardened criminal, it cannot be said that there is no probability of him being reformed and rehabilitated - His unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also indicate towards the probability of his reformation. (Para 43.1) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 436 - 439 - Bail - Grant of bail, though a discretionary order, requires such discretion to be exercised in a judicious manner and on the application of certain settled parameters. More heinous the crime, greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though the exercise also depends on the factual matrix of the matter - The Court, amongst others, must consider the prima facie view of whether the accused has committed the offence, nature of the offence, gravity, likelihood of the accused obstructing in any manner or evading the process of justice. Grant of bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and protection of individual liberty in a criminal case. The prima facie examination is on the basis of analysis of the record, and should not be confused with examination in detail of the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 436 -439 - Bail - Grant of bail, though a discretionary order, requires such discretion to be exercised in a judicious manner and on the application of certain settled parameters. More heinous the crime, greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though the exercise also depends on the factual matrix of the matter - The Court, amongst others, must consider the prima facie view of whether the accused has committed the offence, nature of the offence, gravity, likelihood of the accused obstructing in any manner or evading the process of justice. Grant of bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and protection of individual liberty in a criminal case. The prima facie examination is on the basis of analysis of the record, and should not be confused with examination in detail of the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person - When a person is before the Court and that too in a matter involving personal liberty, least what is expected is for such a person to be given the result one way or the other, based on the merit of his case and not push him to a position of uncertainty or be condemned without being heard, when it matters. Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - In the case of murder (under Section 302 IPC), it is expected that at least some reason would be given while reversing the order of the Trial Court, which had rejected the bail application by a reasoned order. (Para 4) Sabir v Bhoora @ Nadeem, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 210

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 468 - The relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Complainants are defendants in civil suits with regard to the same transactions - Complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC filed after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement - Ulterior motive of harassing the accused - Continuation of the present proceedings would amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law. (Para 22, 30) Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Case of fabrication of documents can't be quashed saying there is no revenue loss to state. Missu Naseem v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 132

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Although it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR. (Para 19) Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies. (Para 17) Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Though the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are wide and are in the nature of inherent power yet, the said power cannot be exercised suo motu in a sweeping manner and beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section. (Para 7) Registrar General v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(6) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 44 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 17 - The objective of Section 44, UAPA, Section 17, NIA Act, and Section 173(6) is to safeguard witnesses. They are in the nature of a statutory witness protection. On the court being satisfied that the disclosure of the address and name of the witness could endanger the family and the witness, such an order can be passed. They are also in the context of special provisions made for offences under special statutes. (Para 24) Waheed -Ur -Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(6), 161, 207 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 44 - Even for protected witnesses declared so under Section 173(6) CrPC read with Section 44 UAPA, the accused can exercise their right under Sections 207 and 161 of the Cr.P.C to obtain copies of their redacted statements which would ensure that the identity of the witness not disclosed. Waheed -Ur -Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 437 and 439 - Bail Considerations - Gravity of the offences alleged and the evidence collected during the investigation, which are forming part of the charge sheet has to be considered. (Para 9.3) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 25A - Role of Director of Prosecution in the administration of Justice - The post of Director of Prosecution is a very important post in so far as the administration of justice in criminal matters is concerned. It is the duty of the Director of Prosecution to take prompt decision. Given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole, the role of the Director of Prosecution in the administration of justice is crucial. He is appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That his is a crucial role is evident from conditions such as in Section 25A (2) of the Code, which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not less than ten years for a person to be eligible to be Directorate of Prosecution and that such an appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter VIII - Powers of the Executive Magistrate to take bond for maintaining security and for keeping the peace and good behaviour by the citizens - Procedure explained. (Para 7) Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 122 - Appeal against High Court judgment which affirmed order passed against appellant by an Executive Magistrate under Section 122(1)(b) CrPC - Dismissed - The order passed by is after following the procedure, so prescribed and affording due opportunity to the appellant. Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - First Information Report - A F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopedia of events. (Para 36) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - There can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences - Once an FIR has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR - Barring situations in which a counter case is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation". (Para 12) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC. It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of. (Para 11) Suresh Kankra v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 188 - The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India - When a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country, going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts - If the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. (Para 13, 14) Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the order passed by Magistrate summoning the appellant who was not named in police report - Dismissed - The name of the accused/appellant had transpired from the statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC - No error in the order of the Magistrate. Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - For summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to the conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police some other persons are involved in the offence. These materials need not remain confined to the police report, charge sheet or the F.I.R. A statement made under Section 164 of the Code could also be considered for such purpose. (Para 21) Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1)(b) - Jurisdiction to issue summons can be exercised even in respect of a person whose name may not feature at all in the police report, whether as accused or in column (2) thereof if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are materials on record which would reveal prima facie his involvement in the offence. (Para 20) Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2 (wa) - 'Victim' and 'complainant / informant' - It is not always necessary that the complainant / informant is also a 'victim', for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an 'informant', and similarly, a 'victim' need not be the complainant or informant of a felony. (Para 24) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2 (wa) - Victim's right to be heard - A 'victim' within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He / She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision - Where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. (Para 24, 25) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - It is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235 (2) - Accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence to be imposed on him. A bifurcated hearing for convicting and sentencing is necessary to provide an effective opportunity to the accused. Adequate opportunity to produce relevant material on the question of death sentence shall be provided to the accused by the Trial Court. (Para 13) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235 (2) - Appeal against Madhya Pradesh HC judgment which confirmed death sentence awarded to the appellant accused of rape and murder of 11 year old girl - Partly allowed - Commuted death sentence- Sentenced to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years during which he shall not be granted remission- No evidence has been placed by the prosecution on record to show that there is no probability of rehabilitation and reformation of the Appellant and the question of an alternative option to death sentence is foreclosed. The Appellant had no criminal antecedents before the commission of crime for which he has been convicted. There is nothing adverse that has been reported against his conduct in jail - The Appellant was aged 25 years on the date of commission of the offence and belongs to a Scheduled Tribes community, eking his livelihood by doing manual labour. Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - No conviction could be based on the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused by leading independent and cogent evidence- When the accused makes inculpatory and exculpatory statements, the inculpatory part of the statement can be taken aid of to lend credence to the case of prosecution. (Para 23) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Appeal against the High court order which set aside the Trial Court order refusing to summon appellant under Section 319 CrPC - High Court even failed to consider the basic principles laid down by this Court while invoking Section 319 of the Code, which has been considered by the learned trial Judge. Sagar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Power under Section 319 of the Code is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above 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. Sagar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Appeal against High Court order which recalled an order passed by it in a criminal case - Dismissed - This application for recall of the order was maintainable as it was an application seeking a procedural review, and not a substantive review. Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Application for recall of the order maintainable when it is an application seeking a procedural review, and not a substantive review. Ganesh Patel v. Umakant Rajoria, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 372 and 378 - The right provided to the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is an absolute right- The victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal-The victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and the proviso to Section 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like subsection (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. in the case of a complainant and in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint. (Para 10.2) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 372, 378 & 401 - No revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal- He/she shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be. (Para 10.1) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against Acquittal - Reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned - With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced - If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal. (Para 7) Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Approach to be adopted while deciding an appeal against acquittal by the trial court - Principles that would regulate and govern the hearing of an appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court - Discussed. (Para 20-29) Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 394 - Abatement of Criminal Appeal - Appellant died during pendency of appeal - The counsel, as an Amicus, cannot be treated as a near relative of the deceased appellant/convict - The application for continuance of the appeal having not been made within 30 days or even thereafter by any near relative, as per the provision of Section 394 of the Cr.P.C., this appeal would abate. Yeruva Sayireddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 - Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction- If the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial Court, the High Court may remit the matter to the trial Court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, in that case, the High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial. (Para 9) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 - Where under the Cr.P.C. an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., however, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. (Para 11) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 401 - While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction. (Para 10.1) Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 (2) - Remission - An opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) - Relevant factors include assessing (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family - If the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595, the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh. (Para 21-24) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 (2) - Remission - It cannot be said that the opinion of the presiding judge is only a relevant factor, which does not have any determinative effect on the application for remission. The purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission - This is not to say that the appropriate government should mechanically follow the opinion of the presiding judge. (Para 21-22) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - Bail - High Court order granting bail to murder accused - Allowed - The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged. Manno Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - Bail - Relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. (Para 9) Manno Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - While elaborate reasons may not be assigned for grant of bail or an extensive discussion of the merits of the case may not be undertaken by the court considering a bail application, an order de hors reasoning or bereft of the relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. In such a case the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum - Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. (Para 17-19) Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 55

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Ordinarily, no such mandatory order or directions should be issued while rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail that the accused person has to be arrested - When the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter. Whether the investigating agency requires custodial interrogation or not, is also to be primarily examined by that agency alone. We say no more. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail - This discretion is not unfettered - bail must be granted after the application of a judicial mind, following well established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner. (Para 28) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - A recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that "the facts and the circumstances" have been considered - Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice. (Para 13) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against Bail granted by the High Court in a murder case - Allowed - The High Court has granted bail to the ­accused by passing a very cryptic and casual order, de hors cogent reasoning. We find that the High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the accused. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against bail granted by Allahabad HC to murder accused - Allowed -This Court on account of the factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims' right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail, without depriving the Accused of his legitimate right to seek enlargement on bail on relevant considerations. Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against Rajasthan HC order granting bail to appellant accused of rape of his niece - Allowed - The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic, and does not suggest any application of mind. Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appellate Court required to analyze whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail looks at whether supervening circumstances have occurred warranting cancellation. (Para 11-15) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - It is not necessary for a Court to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, particularly when the case is at the initial stage and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystalised as such. There cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail. (Para 26) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - No accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 40) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Parameters which must be considered while granting bail discussed - certain important factors that are always considered, inter­alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused - At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. (Para 8-10) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Principles that a Court must bear in mind while deciding an application for grant of bail discussed- A court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. (Para 30-33) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - The Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. (Para 26) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - When bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the CrPC. However, if no new circumstances have arisen since the grant of bail, the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima ­facie case against the accused. (Para 29) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Where a Court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. Appellate Court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non­application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record. Centrum Financial Services v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - While granting bail, the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and 18 circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. Centrum Financial Services v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464 - Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Mere non-framing of a charge under Section 149 on face of charges framed against appellant would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to them - Mere defect in language, or in narration or in the form of charge would not render conviction unsustainable, provided the accused is not prejudiced thereby - If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned. [Referred to Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 546] (Para 7) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464 - Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Mere non-framing of a charge under Section 149 on face of charges framed against appellant would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to them - Mere defect in language, or in narration or in the form of charge would not render conviction unsustainable, provided the accused is not prejudiced thereby - If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned. [Referred to Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 546] (Para 7) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - If a complaint was filed within the period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code from the commission of the offence but the cognizance was taken after the expiry of such period, the terminal point for the prescribed period for the purposes of Section 468, was shifted from the date of taking cognizance to the filing of the complaint or initiation of proceedings so that a complaint ought not to be discarded for reasons beyond the control of the complainant or the prosecution. (Para 14) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - The relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - At the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, the allegations in the FIR must be read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the allegations that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, that the Court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash. (Para 6) Veena Mittal v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings - The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. (Para 30, 39) Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the asking - In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence - Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent on hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. (Para 26-39) Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138,139 - The Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption - In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint - Quashing proceedings must not become an expedition into the merits of factual dispute, so as to conclusively vindicate either the complainant or the defence. (Para 16, 11, 13) Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scope of inherent power to quash FIR/Criminal proceedings discussed. (Para 14-20) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The parameters for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the criminal proceedings under S.482 CrPC discussed -To non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court. Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - There being no bar to exercise of jurisdiction of Criminal Courts including the High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court is competent to entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC. (Para 14) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - When the dispute in question is purely civil in nature, the adoption of remedy in a criminal court would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Jayahari v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 205 (2), 251 and 317 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; Section 138 - The judgment in M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim Apparels Ltd.: (2001) 7 SCC 401 does not deal with a claim for blanket exemption from personal appearance - Observations therein essentially co-relate with the facts of the said case - In appropriate cases the Magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel - Such discretion needs to be exercised only in rare instances and there ought to be good reasons for dispensing with the presence. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Bhanuj Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 205 (2), 251 and 317 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; Section 138 - SLP against Punjab & Haryana HC judgment which refused petitioner's claim of blanket exemption from personal experience in case under Section 138 NI Act -Dismissed - It is difficult to appreciate that in the case of the present nature, the petitioners seek to avoid appearance even once in terms of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Bhanuj Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 - Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. V.C. Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - The orders passed by the Supreme Court on 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 10.07.2020, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 applies in relation to the period prescribed for filing the written statement - Unrealistic and illogical to assume that while the Court has provided for exclusion of period for institution of the suit and therefore, a suit otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) could still be filed within 90 days from 03.10.2021 but the period for filing written statement, if expired during that period, has to operate against the defendant - the period envisaged finally in the order dated 23.09.2021 is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases where the delay is otherwise not condonable - The orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 were of extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances and their operation cannot be curtailed with reference to the ordinary operation of law. (Para 20.2) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - In the ordinary circumstances,On expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and no Court can make an order to extend such time beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons. (Para 16) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 10, Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - These provisions are intended to provide the consequences in relation to a defendant who omits to perform his part in progress of the suit as envisaged by the rules of procedure and are not intended to override all other provisions of CPC like those of Section 10. (Para 26.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - In respect of criminal charges, an accused can be tried by a Court of law and not merely on the basis of the report of the Commissioner under the Inquiry Act. Such a report is not conclusive and an independent action has to be taken by the State or by the victims against the Organizers before the competent court of law to prove the criminal offences said to be committed by certain accused. (Para 49) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - The Commission under the Act shall be appointed either by the Executive or by the Legislature but not by the Judiciary in terms of the provisions of Inquiry Act. (Para 46, 50) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Companies Act, 1956 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appeal against NCLAT order which dismissed appeals against NCLT order denying relief to appellant workmen/employees with regard to their claim relating to salary, which they claimed for the period involving CIRP- Partly allowed - (i) That the wages/salaries of the workmen/employees of the Corporate Debtor for the period during CIRP can be included in the CIRP costs provided it is established and proved that the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern during the CIRP and that the concerned workmen/employees of the corporate debtor actually worked during the CIRP and in such an eventuality, the wages/salaries of those workmen/employees who actually worked during the CIRP period when the resolution professional managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern, shall be paid treating it and/or considering it as part of CIRP costs and the same shall be payable in full first as per Section 53(1)(a) of the IB Code; (ii) considering Section 36(4) of the IB code and when the provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund are kept out of the liquidation estate assets, the share of the workmen dues shall be kept outside the liquidation process and the concerned workmen/employees shall have to be paid the same out of such provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund, if any, available and the Liquidator shall not have any claim over such funds. Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Companies Act, 1956 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Legislative History with respect to workmen/employee's dues towards the wages/salaries including the amount due and payable towards provident fund, gratuity and pension fund - discussed. (Para 8.2) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Companies Act, 2013 - Advertisement of winding up petition - The power to dispense with any advertisement, is now made available specifically under the statutory regime of 2013. (Para 7) Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Companies Act, 2013 - Appeal filed by Devas Multimedia challenging the orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT allowing the winding up on a petition filed by ISRO's commercial arm Antrix Corporation - Dismissed. Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Companies Act, 2013 - Memorandum of Association - A company's MOA is its charter and outlines the purpose for which the company has been created. The object clause in an MOA is considered to be representative of the purpose of a company and it is expected that the company will fulfill/attempt to fulfill the objects it has laid out in its MOA. (Para. 52) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Companies Act, 2013; Section 170 - Companies Act, 1956; Section 394 (1)(a) - Amalgamation - Amalgamation is unlike the winding up of a corporate entity. In the case of amalgamation, the outer shell of the corporate entity is undoubtedly destroyed; it ceases to exist. Yet, in every other sense of the term, the corporate venture continues – enfolded within the new or the existing transferee entity. In other words, the business and the adventure lives on but within a new corporate residence, i.e., the transferee company. It is, therefore, essential to look beyond the mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment proceedings - Upon amalgamation, the cause of action or the complaint does not per se cease – depending of course, upon the structure and objective of enactment - The quest of legal systems and courts has been to locate if a successor or representative exists in relation to the particular cause or action, upon whom the assets might have devolved or upon whom the liability in the event it is adjudicated, would fall. (Para 18) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 2 v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Companies Act, 2013; Section 188 - Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015; Regulation 23 - Related parties abstained from voting in special resolution which approved a related party transaction - They voted in Extraordinary GM convened for rescinding the said resolution - SAT held the bar of voting as per Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 on related parties operated only at the time of entering into a contract or arrangement, i.e., when the resolution dated 15.07.2014 was passed; and therein the said related parties indeed abstained from voting. It found no fault in the said parties voting in the recalling/rescinding of the said resolution - The view, as taken by the Appellate Tribunal, in the given set of facts and circumstances of the present case, appears to be a plausible view of the matter. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. R.T. Agro Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Companies Act, 2013; Section 271 - Companies Act, 1956 - Distinguishing features between the 1956 Act and the 2013 Act, with regard to the question of availability of fraud as a ground for the winding up of a company discussed - In contrast to the 1956 Act, the 2013 Act provides 2 different routes for the winding up of a company on the ground of fraud - (i) winding up under clause (c) of Section 271 (directly on the ground of fraud) by any person authorised by the Central Government by notification; or (ii) winding up under clause (e) of Section 271 (on the ground that it is just and equitable to wind up) in terms of Section 224(2)(a) on the basis of a report of investigation under Section 213(b). (Para 6) Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Companies Act, 2013; Section 271 - If the conduct of the affairs of the company in a fraudulent manner is a continuing process, the right to apply for winding up becomes recurring. (Para 8.22) Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Competition Act, 2002; Section 3 - Lotteries - If in the tendering process there is an element of anti-competition which would require investigation by the CCI, that cannot be prevented under the pretext of the lottery business being res extra commercium, more so when the State Government decides to deal in lotteries. (Para 39) Competition Commission v. State of Mizoram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 75

Competitive examinations - Merit - Merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive examination which only provides formal equality of opportunity. Competitive examinations assess basic current competency to allocate educational resources but are not reflective of excellence, capabilities and potential of an individual which are also shaped by lived experiences, subsequent training and individual character. Crucially, open competitive examinations do not reflect the social, economic and cultural advantage that accrues to certain classes and contributes to their success in such examinations. (Para 59(ii)) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Conflict of Laws - If there is any inconsistency between two legislations, the later law, even if general in nature, would override an earlier special law. (Para 18) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 - What the 102nd Amendment prohibits the State from undertaking is identifying a caste as SEBC or including or excluding a community from the list notified by the President - Determining the extent of reservation for a community amongst the list of Most Backward Classes does not amount to identification. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 - The 105th Amendment Act cannot be said to be a validating amendment- Prospective in operation - Identifying certain communities which are to be deemed as SEBCs for the purposes of the Central Government and the States, respectively, cannot be said to be a matter of procedure. The procedural aspect of the 102nd Amendment Act and the 105th Amendment Act is only the manner of publication of the lists of SEBCs, whereas the substantive element of the said amendments is identifying and recognising certain communities as SEBCs. (Para 29) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 - The scheme of the Constitutional Amendment is not to take away legislative competence of the State Legislatures to legislate on the subject of local Government but it is more to ensure that the three tiers of governance are strengthened as part of democratic set up. (Para 8) State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Constitution of India, 1950 - After a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed with NOIDA, the petitioner made a representation to it requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed - High Court directed NOIDA to consider the representation - NOIDA rejected it - This was again challenged before High Court by the Petitioner - High Court dismissed writ petition - SLP challenging the said High Court judgment dismissed. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Appeal against High Court order that set aside order issued by Municipality cancelling work order to appellant - Allowed - In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order. Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - State - The determination of a body as a 'State' is not a rigid set of principles. What is to be seen is whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, albeit if the control is mere regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it will not serve to make the body a State. Also, the presence of some element of public duty or function would not by itself suffice for bringing a body within the net of Article 12. (Para 6) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - State - Whether Automotive Research Association of India Is A State -The majority of the members of the Association are associated with the manufacturers of the automobiles or their components and are not in service of the government. They are private players and from the motor vehicle industry - The main objective and function of the association relate to motor vehicles which is not directly or indirectly a field connected with functions of the government - One function assigned to the Association, which is not the primary and forms a small fraction of their activities and functions performed by the Association, would not matter. An overall and holistic view of the functions and activities, including the primary function(s), should be taken into consideration - Association is not an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Further, the Government does not have deep and pervasive control over it. (Para 18 - 24) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - While exercising its functions on the administrative side, the High Court would also be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (Para 39) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal By Special Leave is not a regular appeal - The Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is the scope of these appeals that this Court would enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by the Trial Court and approved by the High Court. (Para 20) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal By Special Leave - In an appeal by special leave, where the Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently returned the findings of fact after appreciation of evidence, each and every finding of fact cannot be contested nor such an appeal could be dealt with as if another forum for reappreciation of evidence - If the assessment by the Trial Court and the High Court could be said to be vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or in disregard to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice, the Court may, and in appropriate cases would, interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice but, such a course is adopted only in rare and exceptional cases of manifest illegality. (Para 20) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Appeal filed by power distribution companies assailing the order of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi which had directed the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to dispose of two applications filed by the parties before it. Displeased with the conduct of the appellants in the dispute the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lakhs) on them. Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Every action of a State is required to be guided by the touchstone of non­arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. Every action of a State is equally required to be guided by public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose highest duty is to the people of the country. The Public Authority is therefore required to exercise the powers only for the public good. (Para 100) Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Non -consideration of the relevant material and consideration of the extraneous material would come into the realm of irrationality. An action which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 66) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Policy Decision - The policy of the State of Rajasthan is that while selecting Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks are to be given to such employees who have done similar work under the State Government and under the various schemes - Whether such bonus marks would also be available to the contractual employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States - The policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Para 22) Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Right to equality - The right against unfair State action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - There is a presumption of validity of the State action and the burden is on the person who alleges violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to prove the assertion - Where no plausible reason or principle is indicated nor is it discernible and the impugned State action appears to be arbitrary, the initial burden to prove the arbitrariness is discharged, thereby shifting onus on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable. If the State is unable to produce material to justify its action as fair and reasonable, the burden on the person alleging arbitrariness must be held to be discharged. (Para 55) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - There is no negative equality - If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. (Para 24) R. Muthukumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 140

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141 - Executive Decisions - When it comes to taking decisions which affect the rights of the citizens, it is the paramount duty of the Executive to enquire carefully about the implications of its decisions. At the very minimum, it must equip itself with the law which is laid down by the Courts and find out whether the decision will occasion a breach of law declared by the highest Court of the land - Respect for the decisions of the Courts holding the field are the very core of Rule of Law. Disregard or neglecting the position at law expounded by the Courts would spell doom for a country which is governed by the Rule of Law. (Para 22, 23) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Affirmed the judgment of the High Court but refused to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution the marriage declared as dissolved. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Consent of the parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved. (Para 29 -31) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Consent of the parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved. (Para 29-31) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Affirmed the judgment of the High Court but refused to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution the marriage declared as dissolved. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Relief can be moulded by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the declaration of a statute as unconstitutional. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - The issue whether a Judge sitting singly can pass an order granting decree of divorce to the parties on the basis of the Settlement Agreement in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India referred for adjudication by a larger Bench. (Para 2) Anamika Varun Rathore v. Varun Pratap Singh Rathore, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15 - Practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism - Such attitudes have no place in our society; recent developments have highlighted areas hitherto considered exclusive male "bastions" such as employment in the armed forces, are no longer so. (Para 48) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licenced bars is void - This restriction directly transgresses Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - the latter provision both in its effect to the performers as well as the license owners. While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination. (Para 47, 49) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender -cap (i.e. four females and four males, in any performance) appears to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments,, belong to a certain class of society Such measures – which claim protection, in reality are destructive of Article 15 (3) as they masquerade as special provisions and operate to limit or exclude altogether women's choice of their avocation. (Para 42, 46) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16(2) - Compassionate Appointment Policy - Descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under the scheme of compassionate appointments - A policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant. (Para 9, 10) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16(2) - Descent - 'Descent' must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant's legitimacy as their child. (Para 9) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16(2) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16 - Compassionate Appointment - The condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee - Rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would violate Article 14 if the policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment. The circular creates two categories between one class, and it has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. Once the law has deemed them legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered under the policy. Exclusion of one class of legitimate children would fail to meet the test of nexus with the object, and it would defeat the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the family of the deceased employee. (Para 2, 7) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 194(3), 246 - Schedule VII List II Entry 39 and 40 - Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 - In Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam (2018) 14 SCC 408, it was declared that the Legislature of Assam lacked competence to enact it - Need no reconsideration - Entry 40 which relates to salaries and allowances of the Ministers of the State cannot be resorted to, for the purpose of justifying the legislative competence in enacting the Assam Act, 2004. (Para 14) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - "Person aggrieved" - Despite adequate opportunity, if a person has not lodged any objection at an appropriate stage and time, he could not be said to have been in fact, grieved. (Para 8.1) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Appeal against high Court set aside the orders passed by authorities refusing to confirm auction in favour of highest bidder - Allowed - The High Court was not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, and it was not open for the High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over the decision of the competent authority and particularly in the matters where the authority competent of floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements, therefore, the interference otherwise has to be very minimal. State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Appeal against High Court order that set aside order issued by Municipality cancelling work order to appellant - Allowed - In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order. Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226- Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - The scope of judicial review in such foreign funded contracts should be far much less than the ordinary Government funded contracts funded from Consolidated Fund of India. The scope of judicial review in such foreign funded contracts/projects would be restricted and minimal. In such foreign funded contracts, the only ground for judicial review ought to be on a limited aspect, i.e., the action of the executing authority does not suffer from favouritism or nepotism and based on the grounds which have been concealed from the foreign financing authority, if disclosed, would have persuaded the financing authority to cancel the contract. (Para 11) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226- Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of the prima facie opinion that the decision is as such perverse and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fides and/or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petition and/or pass any appropriate interim order, High Court may put to the writ petitioner's notice that in case the petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it, he/they may be saddled with the damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to such frivolous litigations initiated by him/it. (Para 15) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226- Judicial Review - Contractual Matters - Whether the Bid submitted by a Bidder suffers from any material deviation and/or any substantial deviation should be left to the author of the Bid document and normally, the High Courts, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the same unless such a decision is found to be mala fide and/or there are allegations of favouritism and/or such a decision is arbitrary. (Para 10) National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial review in contractual / commercial / tenders / public auction matters - Superior Courts should not interfere in the matters of tenders, unless substantial public interest was involved or the transaction was malafide - Plausible decisions need not be overturned - Latitude ought to be granted to the State in exercise of its executive power. However, allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety would be enough grounds for Courts to assume jurisdiction and remedy such ills - Opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, not to be interfered with unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 19 -26) State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226- Judicial Review- Disciplinary Proceedings - Where the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on evidence, or based on a consideration of irrelevant material, or ignoring relevant material, are mala fide, or where the findings are perverse or such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances, the remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution are available, and intervention, warranted. (Para 19) United Bank of India V. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 109

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226- Judicial Review- Disciplinary Proceedings - For any court to ascertain if any findings were beyond the record (i.e., no evidence) or based on any irrelevant or extraneous factors, or by ignoring material evidence, necessarily some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of "no evidence" or perversity, cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the materials, and the findings of the disciplinary authority. However, the margin of appreciation of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution would be different; it is not appellate in character. (Para 19) United Bank of India V. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 109

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - Limited jurisdiction - The High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. (Para 4) Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial Review Of Disciplinary Proceedings - Disciplinary Proceedings - The courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate - Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision -making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved - While exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The decision are also disturbed when it is found to be ailing with perversity. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial review of policy decisions - Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Para 16) Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Natural justice - Natural justice is an important facet of a judicial review. Providing effective natural justice to affected parties, before a decision is taken, is necessary to maintain the Rule of law. Natural justice is usually discussed in the context of administrative actions, wherein procedural requirement of a fair hearing is read in to ensure that no injustice is caused. When it comes to judicial review, the natural justice principle is built into the rules and procedures of the Court, which are expected to be followed meticulously to ensure that highest standards of fairness are afforded to the parties. (Para 36) Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - High Courts to be more discerning / vigilant and/or cautious while entertaining writ petitions apparently filed in public interest - (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations; (2) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL; (3) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL; (4) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition; (5) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation; and (6) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. (Para 8.12) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - SLP challenging High Court order dismissing the writ petition challenging a tender condition - Dismissed - The clause cannot be said to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made and the same shall be applicable to all the bidders/tenderers and there is justification also shown providing such a clause. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Specific Performance - No writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8) Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Specific Performance - No writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8) Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order - disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - The appellant was serving as a Branch Officer of a Bank. A complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/­ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/ - when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer held that most of the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him. The Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service. Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved. Therefore, the High Court order was modified to the extent substituting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - The State Government, as a juristic entity, has a right to protect its property through the writ court, just as any individual could have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. (Para 125) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Appeal - Appeal against High Court judgment which dismissed special (writ) appeal without independent reasoning - Allowed - This is not the manner in which the Division Bench should have decided and disposed of the writ appeal. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction vested in it - Remanded for fresh consideration. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Appeal - There must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal. (Para 6) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Nature of the function performed by a body may be relevant for Article 226, considering the language of Article 226 which encapsulates a wide scope of legal right. (Para 22) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Locus Standi - Registered Society of Professional Architects who claim to be teaching faculty in institutions imparting education in Architecture, filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for quashing the "Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 - High Court quashed the Regulations - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court while setting aside the High Court judgment observed: Due to the nature of its membership, the society could have been aggrieved only by the prescriptions affecting the teaching faculty. It could not have challenged the prescriptions with which they are not in any way concerned. (Para 19) Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - After a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed with NOIDA, the petitioner made a representation to it requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed - High Court directed NOIDA to consider the representation - NOIDA rejected it - This was again challenged before High Court by the Petitioner - High Court dismissed writ petition - SLP challenging the said High Court judgment dismissed. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - Delay and Latches - High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly - Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation - If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation - Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. (Para 4, 5) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - Delay and latches - High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly - Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation - If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation - Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. (Para 4, 5) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. (Para 6) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. (Para 6) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Appeal against High Court order which set aside the eviction order of Appellate Tribunal High Court - Allowed - The High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is impermissible - There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Scope of interference by the supervisory Court on decisions of the fact -finding forum - Situations when a finding on facts or questions of law would be perverse: (i) Erroneous on account of non -consideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. (Para 10 -11) Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227- Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India not justified in upsetting the finding of fact rendered by the Appellant Authority. Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Bail - Writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate granting bail - Judge granting bail and Addl. District Judge who refused to interfere with said order impleaded by name - Conduct of the petitioner deprecated - No reason why the petitioner should have filed this writ petition directly in this court. Balakram @ Bhura v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for the relief(s) prayed to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings/FIR ought not to have been filed - It is not expected that the relief which can be considered by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be considered in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Delay by itself cannot be used as a weapon to Veto an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - In a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self -restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a person complaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Court. This is subject to the power of the Court to relegate the party to other proceedings. (Para 7) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge - A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - The court has power of grant of compensation in the case of violation of Fundamental Rights. (Para 29) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 and 226 - Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review of a decision of the Full Court of a High Court is extremely narrow and we cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of the Full Court of a High Court. (Para 29) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 and 226 - Judicial Review - The principle of fairness has an important place in the law of judicial review and that unfairness in the purported exercise of power can be such that it is abuse or excess of power. The court should interfere where discretionary power is not exercised reasonably and in good faith. (Para 40) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Appeal against High Court Judgment allowing PIL in the matter of a title claim between a private party and the State - Allowed - The State clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants - Institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - The dialogic process of judicial review can provide effective solutions which provide acceptable outcomes which promote harmony. (Para 9) Surat Parsi Panchayat Board v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - One of the measures to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court. (Para 22) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general - Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts - Many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. (Para 21) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi -One of the measures to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court. (Para 22) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general - Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts - Many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. (Para 21) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Appeal against High Court Judgment allowing PIL in the matter of a title claim between a private party and the State - Allowed - The State clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants - Institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 and 14 - Judicial Review - Arbitrariness - The limited scope of judicial review is only to satisfy that the State action is not vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness and no more - It is not for the courts to recast the policy or to substitute it with another which is considered to be more appropriate - The attack on the ground of arbitrariness is successfully repelled by showing that the act which was done, was fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 55) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 342 - A person entitled to be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par with a person who is brought in by an incompetent Body, viz., the State in the manner done. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 342 - Scheme - Manner in which the members of the Scheduled Tribe are to be recognised - Power with the President after consultation with the State to specify the Tribes which are to be treated as Scheduled Tribes in that State or the Union Territory as the case may be. Parliament is empowered to include or exclude from the list. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 72 and 161 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432, 433 and 433A - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 45 and 53 - There can be imposition of life imprisonment without any remission till the last breath as a substitution of death sentence. (Para 3) Ravindra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Constitution of India, 1950 - Levy of Excise Duty - Appeal against High Court order which set aside demand notice issued to pay excise duty on the weak spirit, which was more than 2% allowable wastage - Dismissed - Wastage generated has been found to be unfit and unsafe for potable purpose - the State has power to levy excise duty only in respect of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240

Constitution of India, 1950 - Levy of Excise Duty - State Legislature has no authority to levy duty or tax on alcohol, which is not for human consumption as that could be levied only by the Centre - State only empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor for human consumption. State of Orissa v. Utkal Distilleries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240

Constitution of India, 1950 - Manipur Assembly passed the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018 - The Manipur Legislature was competent to enact the Repealing Act, 2018. The saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 is struck down. However, this shall not affect the acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries under the 2012 Act till discontinuation of their appointments, which are hereby saved. (Para 26) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950 - Permissibility of sub-classification amongst backward classes as has been done in the 2021 Act cannot be contested. Reasonableness of sub-classification is a separate question. (Para 33) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh) - Appeal against High Court order refusing to interfere with confiscation order passed by District Magistrate despite acquittal in connected criminal case under MP Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act - Allowed - The order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges. The confiscation of the appellant's truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A - The District Magistrate's order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements. Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Constitution of India, 1950 - Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021 declared unconstitutional - Upheld the Madras High Court judgment holding that there is no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs, and therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16. (Para 74) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The conclusion of the High Court that determining the extent of reservation amongst the 'Backward Classes of citizens' can be done only by amending the 1994 Act in view of Article 31-B is unsustainable - State Legislature did not lack competence to enact a legislation for determining the extent of reservation amongst the MBCs and DNCs. (Para 46) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court has committed an error in holding that the 2021 Act is violative of Article 342-A. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The State's competence to enact the 2021 Act with the Governor's assent cannot be faulted with nor can the State be compelled by the courts to reserve the 2021 Act for assent of the President. (Para 51) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - There is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act. (Para 71) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ Petition Challenging Bihar Government notification approving issuance of caste certificate to Lohar community - Allowed - Lohars were not included as members of the Scheduled Tribe right from the beginning and they were, in fact, included as members of the OBCs in the State of Bihar - Lohar is not same as Lohara. Including Lohars alongside 'Lohara' is clearly illegal and arbitrary - State to pay costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioners. Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226 - Writ Petition - High Court should apply its mind to the grounds of challenge and to the submissions made. State of Orissa v. Prasanta Kumar Swain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - An order granting bail to an accused, if passed in a casual and cryptic manner, de hors reasoning which would validate the grant of bail, is liable to be set aside by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by the Supreme Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court - Summarized. (Para 30) Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Principles governing interference in a criminal appeal by special leave. (Para 7) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - A mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition would not mean that the view of the High Court has been approved by this Court. (Para 37) State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Supreme Court exercising power under Article 136 of the Constitution may not refuse to interfere in a case where three Courts have gone completely wrong. The jurisdiction generated in an appeal under Article 136 is undoubtedly rare and extraordinary. Article 136 of the Constitution only confers a right to obtain special leave in rare and extraordinary cases. (Para 11) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Classification Test - When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one - When the differentiation is clearly distinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets satisfied. Social, revenue and economic considerations are certainly permissible parameters in classifying a particular group - Courts could not act like appellate authorities especially when a classification is introduced by way of a policy decision clearly identifying the group of beneficiaries by analysing the relevant materials - When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided. (Para 14-18) State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The differential treatment for different classes would not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The only requirement would be, as to whether such a classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. (Para 31) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - Service Law - An amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 47) Punjab State Co. Agri. Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 42

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial. (Para 71-72) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - While caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the State Government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. (Para 54) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14-16 - Substantial Equality - Discrimination both direct and indirect is contrary to the vision of substantive equality -The true aim of achieving substantive equality must be fulfilled by the State in recognizing the persistent patterns of discrimination against women once they are in the work place. (Para 46-48) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 - Articles 15(4) and 15 (5) are not an exception to Article 15 (1), which itself sets out the principle of substantive equality (including the recognition of existing inequalities). Thus, Articles 15 (4) and 15 (5) become a restatement of a particular facet of the rule of substantive equality that has been set out in Article 15 (1). (Para 59(i)) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Railways LARGESS Scheme - Appeal against High Court judgment which held that though the LARGESS Scheme was terminated, since the respondent's father superannuated on 1 January 2015 prior to 27 January 2017, the benefit of the scheme could be extended to him in terms of the notification dated 28 September 2018- Allowed - The impugned judgment issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained. Chief Personnel Officer v. A. Nishanth George, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - No yardstick can be laid down by the Court for determining the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts for the purpose of providing reservation. (Para 16) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - The judgment of M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 should be declared to have prospective effect- Making the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj (supra) effective from the year 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of a number of civil servants and would have an effect of unsettling the seniority of individuals over a long period of time. (Para 42) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs. Collection of information regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs cannot be with reference to the entire service or 'class'/'group' but it should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought. Cadre, which should be the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data in relation to the promotional post(s), would be meaningless if data pertaining to representation of SCs and STs is with reference to the entire service. (Para 29) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - It is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts, by taking into account relevant factors. (Para 30) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - We are not inclined to express any view on discontinuation of reservations in totality, which is completely within the domain of the legislature and the executive. As regards review, we are of the opinion that data collected to determine inadequacy of representation for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions needs to be reviewed periodically. The period for review should be reasonable and is left to the Government to set out. (Para 31) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 16 - Reservation in Promotion - The conclusion in B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India (2019) 16 SCC 129 approving the collection of data on the basis of 'groups' and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors.(2018) 10 SCC 396 – The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into account the data pertaining to a 'group', which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not group-wise. Sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate for collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a 'group', is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. (Para 47) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(g) - Right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration. (Para 40-41) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - By following the procedure established by law, the personal liberty of the citizens can be dealt with. (Para 8) Devadassan v. Second Class Executive Magistrate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21- Fair Trial - An accused is entitled for a fair trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 13) Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Preservation of family life is an incident of Article 21. (Para 51) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The dignity of person, which is an intrinsic element of Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be left to the vagaries of insensitive procedures and a hostile environment. Access to justice mandates that positive steps have to be adopted to create a barrier free environment. These barriers are not only those which exist within the physical spaces of conventional courts but those which operate on the minds and personality of vulnerable witnesses. (Para 3) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The sweep of Article 21 is expansive enough to govern the action of dismembering a member from the House of the Legislative Assembly in the form of expulsion or be it a case of suspension by directing withdrawal from the meeting of the Assembly for the remainder of the Session. (Para 49) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high. (Para 21) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 32, 226 - Infringement of Article 21 may be an individual case such as by the State or its functionaries; or by the Organizers and the State; or by the Organizers themselves have been subject matter of consideration before this Court in a writ petition under Article 32 or before the High Court under Article 226. (Para 22) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 39A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 304 - Right to a fair trial - Right to fair and speedy trial applies as much to the victim as the accused - While expediting the trial, it is imperative on the Court to see that the due procedure is followed during the course of trial. (Para 33) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgments dismissing writ petitions reopening of the assessment/re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act - Allowed - Orders are bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents - Remanded. Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which set aside the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal directing the compulsory retirement of the respondent employee from service following a disciplinary enquiry on charges of bribery - Allowed - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employee - The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Uttarakhand HC order which disposed a writ petition filed without deciding it on merits - Allowed and remanded - The order is bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - CISF Rules, 2001; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of judicial review and interference of the courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality discussed. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Habeas Corpus Petition - Custody Petition - The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration. The Courts, in such proceedings, cannot decide where the parents should reside as it will affect the right to privacy of the parents - A writ Court while dealing with the issue of habeas corpus cannot direct a parent to leave India and to go abroad with the child. If such orders are passed against the wishes of a parent, it will offend her/his right to privacy. A parent has to be given an option to go abroad with the child. It ultimately depends on the parent concerned to decide and opt for giving a company to the minor child for the sake of the welfare of the child. It will all depend on the priorities of the concerned parent. (Para 33) Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court cannot issue direction to the State to form a new policy. Krishan Lal v. Vini Mahajan Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 68

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide a particular percentage of reservation for sports persons, namely, in the present case, 3% reservation instead of 1% provided by the State Government, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 9) State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender- The author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements- If its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint- The technical evaluation or comparison by the Court is impermissible. (Para 17) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender- Even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. (Para 17, 20) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Interpretation of Tender - The process of interpretation of terms and conditions of contract is essentially left to the author of the tender document and the occasion for interference by the Court would arise only if the questioned decision fails on the salutary tests of irrationality or unreasonableness or bias or procedural impropriety. (Para 24) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - The courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate - Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved - While exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The decision are also disturbed when it is found to be ailing with perversity. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. (Para 17) State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Regularization - High Court directed the State to consider the cases of some temporary employees for regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts - Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction - No such order of absorption and/or regularisation even if required for creating supernumerary posts and not to treat the same as precedent could have been passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 6, 10) State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 24 Mar 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ; Section 13(2) - A writ petition against the private financial institution – ARC – against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable - The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. (Para 12) Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ; Section 13(2) - The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers- The High Court to be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. (Para 13.2) Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 41(ha) - In view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the Writ Court. (Para 19-21) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order - disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to protecting the personal liberty persons who have demonstrated that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law. (Para 16) Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it is the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons. (Para 2.1) Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petition, there is a duty cast upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Appeal - Appeal against High Court judgment which dismissed special (writ) appeal without independent reasoning - Allowed - This is not the manner in which the Division Bench should have decided and disposed of the writ appeal. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction vested in it - Remanded for fresh consideration. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Appeal - There must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal. (Para 6) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual Matters - Interim orders - Any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. (Para 26) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. (Para 23) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - Multiple layers of exercise of jurisdiction also delay the final adjudication challenging the grant of tender. It would be open to the High Courts or the Hon'ble Chief Justice to entrust these petitions to a Division Bench of the High Court, which would avoid at least hearing by one of the forums. (Para 27) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Grant of Tender - Interpretation of terms of the contract is that the question as to whether a term of the contract is essential or not is to be viewed from the perspective of the employer and by the employer - Satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids -The Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. (Para 17, 22, 23) N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope of interference by the supervisory Court on decisions of the fact-finding forum is limited - Supreme Court was of the view that there was overstepping of this boundary by the High Court - in its exercise of scrutinising the evidence to find perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, there was re-appreciation of evidence itself by the High Court - the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 had gone deep into the factual arena to disagree with the final fact-finding forum - the High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. (Para 18) Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. (Para 15) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 233, 235 - The High Courts are well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to sub-serve this - The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment - Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confront challenges to liberty and justice. (Para 26) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Confiscation - By an order of confiscation, a person is deprived of the enjoyment of his property - Therefore, it is necessary for the State to establish that the property was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public purpose or public interest. (Para 17) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A - High threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State. (Para 25, 15) Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Requirement of public purpose is a pre-condition and right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in Article 300-A. (Para 21) Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Administrative instructions can supplement rules which are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in a manner which does not lead to any inconsistencies. Executive instructions may fill up the gaps in the rules. But supplementing the exercise of the rule making power with the aid of administrative or executive instructions is distinct from taking the aid of administrative instructions contrary to the express provision or the necessary intendment of the rules which have been framed under Article 309. (Para 32) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Where there is a conflict between executive instructions and rules framed under Article 309, the rules must prevail. In the event of a conflict between the rules framed under Article 309 and a law made by the appropriate legislature, the law prevails. Where the rules are skeletal or in a situation when there is a gap in the rules, executive instructions can supplement what is stated in the rule. (Para 28) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 311 - Civil Post - Holding a license to run the fair price shop cannot be said to be holding a civil post. Manju Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 311(2) - Judicial Service - When the Government had, on enquiry, come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the appellant was unsuitable for the post he held on probation, this was clearly by way of punishment and, hence, the appellant would be entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 50) Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - No express prohibition stems from Article 31-B on the powers of the State Legislature to legislate on matters incidental to statutes placed within the Ninth Schedule - State has the power to amend or repeal a statute which has been placed under the Ninth Schedule - Any amendment made to a statute placed under the Ninth Schedule does not get protection under Article 31-B, unless the said amendment is also included in the Ninth Schedule. (Para 44) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 - Placing of the 1994 Act under the Ninth Schedule cannot operate as a hurdle for the State to enact legislations on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act. Legislative competence of the State Legislature can only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and Article 31-B does not stipulate any such express prohibition on the legislative powers of the State. (Para 75) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Remission - The Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision is arbitrary in nature. The Court is empowered to direct the government to reconsider its decision. (Para 14) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - In judicial review proceedings, the Courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. (Para 8.4) Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 64

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - Policy Matters - Court in the exercise of judicial review cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy. Yet, the legitimacy of a policy can be assessed on the touchstone of constitutional parameters. Moreover, short of testing the validity of a policy on constitutional parameters, judicial review can certainly extend to requiring the State to take into consideration constitutional values when it frames policies. The State, consistent with the mandate of Part III of the Constitution, must take into consideration constitutional values while designing its policy in a manner which enforces and implement those values. (Para 43) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review in Policy Matters - Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy. Further, an increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue. This is not to say that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy. (Para 46) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Reservation - No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide for reservation - Even no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State to collect quantifiable data to justify their action not to provide for reservation- Even if the under-representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services is brought to the notice of the Court, no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the State Government to provide for reservation. (Para 8) State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Supreme Court allowed writ petition filed by a convict whose application for remission was rejected - Special Judge, Durg directed to provide an opinion on the application for remission afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning. Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Writ Of Quo Warranto - The jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued when a person is holding the public office does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (Para 9, 9.1) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 338B - The requirement of consultation with an expert constitutional body is indeed mandatory and it would be fatal to disregard the provision - Article 338- B(9) does not stop the State from enacting a legislation in furtherance of a major policy matter but states that the State Government shall consult the Commission on such matters - The consequence of disregarding a mandatory consultation provision would normally render the legislation void as it is in breach of an obligatory requirement to consult an expert constitutional body. (Para 75-76) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 73, 162 - A policy decision taken in terms of the power conferred under Article 73 of the Constitution on the Union and Article 162 on the States is subservient to the recruitment rules that have been framed under a legislative enactment or the rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. (Para 29) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 323A, 323B, 226, 227- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Section 25 - Any decision of Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. (Para 16) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 34,62 List II & Entry 40 of List I of Seventh Schedule - 'Lotteries' is a species of gambling activity and hence within the ambit of 'betting and gambling' as appearing in Entry 34 List II - It is only lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of State in terms of Entry 40 of List I which are excluded from Entry 34 of List II - If lotteries are conducted by private parties or by instrumentalities or agencies authorized, by Government of India or the Government of State, it would come within the scope and ambit of Entry 34 of List II - The State Legislatures have the power to tax lotteries under Entry 62 of List II. (Para 124) State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

Constitution of India, 1950; Part IXA - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009; Section 5, 329 - The scheme of Part IXA does not contemplate a separate notification under Article 243Q of the Constitution and thereafter under Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. As Section 5 of the Municipalities Act is not inconsistent with any provisions of Article 243Q of the Constitution, therefore, two notifications are not contemplated or warranted under the Scheme of Part IXA or the Municipalities Act - The State Government is competent to divide the Municipalities in the State into classes according to their income or other factors like population or importance of the local area and other circumstances as provided under Section 329 of the Municipalities Act. (Para 16-17) State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Constitution of India, 1950; Part IXA - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009; Section 5, 329 - Appeal against Rajasthan High Court set aside a notification declaring Gram Panchayat Roopbas, District Bharatpur as Municipal Board on the ground that no public notification as contemplated under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India has been produced specifying Gram Panchayat Roopbas as a "transitional area" and thus, it cannot be declared as a Municipal Board - Allowed - State Government had exercised powers to establish Municipality in terms of Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Constitutional Validity - Mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to attract the constitutional inhibition - There is presumption that the Parliament understands and reacts to the needs of its own people as per the exigencies and experience gained in the implementation of the law. (Para 59) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Consumer Law - Transfer Petition filed seeking transfer of consumer complaints pending before Consumer fora to Bombay High Court - Dismissed - The consumer complaints are filed under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, such consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Yes bank v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 135

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal by Developer against NCDRC order directing refund and compensation to Consumer for its failure to deliver possession of the apartment within the time stipulated as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement - Dismissed - Commission is correct in its approach in holding that the clauses of the agreement are one-sided and that the Consumer is not bound to accept the possession of the apartment and can seek refund of the amount deposited by her with interest - Commission has correctly exercised its power and jurisdiction in passing the directions for refund of the amount with interest. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Consumer complaint alleging vehicle defect - The limitation will run from the day the defect surfaces in a case. (Para 7) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - If the NCDRC is of the opinion that the Surveyor was an unnecessary party or the pleadings are contradictory, it should have struck down the said party. The striking of surveyor from the array of parties would not make the complaint disjoined, as it was duty of the NCDRC to strike of an unnecessary party. (Para 3) Brahmaputra Biochem Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other - They are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy. (Para 14.1) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Legislative history discussed - The legislative intent is to keep the commercial transactions out of the purview of the Act and at the same time, to give benefit of the Act to a person who enters into such commercial transactions, when he uses such goods or avails such services exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self ­employment. (Para 21 - 46) Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - The 'business to business' disputes cannot be construed as consumer disputes, thereby defeating the very purpose of providing speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. (Para 47) Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - The question, as to whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, "commercial purpose" is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business ­to ­business transactions between commercial entities; that the purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit­ generating activity; that the identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive for determining the question as to whether it is for a commercial purpose or not. What is relevant is the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction and as to whether the same was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary. It has further been held that if the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and the consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, then the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of "generating livelihood by means of self -employment" need not be looked into. (Para 42) Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of 'consumer' as defined in the said Act, he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self -employment. (Para 45) Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 7B - Existence of an arbitral remedy under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum - It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration, but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the Act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019. (Para 16, 20) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - Scope of expression 'service' discussed - a service of every description would fall within the ambit of the statutory provision. (Para 9) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Act of 1986 is not a general law but a special law that has been enacted by Parliament specifically to protect the interest of consumers. [Overruled General Manager, Telecom v. M Krishnan, (2009) 8 SCC 481] (Para 18) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be a ground to shut the doors of any forum created under the Act like the Consumer Protection Act. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry. (Para 11) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 14(1) - If the reliefs granted in a consumer complaint fits any of the statutory provision contained in sub clause (1) of Section 14 of the Act, it would be well within the power and jurisdiction of the Forum to pass directions irrespective of the fact as to whether specifically certain reliefs have been claimed or not, provided that facts make out foundations for granting such reliefs. In any event, it is within the jurisdiction of the said forum to mould the reliefs claimed to do effective justice, provided the relief comes within the stipulation of Section 14(1) of the Act. (Para 15) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 14(1) - The failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a car­buyer of reasonable prudence should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect. And in computing such punitive damages, the capacity of the manufacturing enterprise should also be a factor - Such damages can be awarded in the event the defect is found to have the potential to cause serious injury or major loss to the consumer, particularly in respect of safety features of a vehicle. (Para 13) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(g) - Failure to obtain an occupancy certificate or abide by contractual obligations amounts to a deficiency in service - Consumers 'consumers' has right to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate. (Para 21-22) Samruddhi Co-operative Society v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(g), 14 - The power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of Agreement is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts - A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation. The consumer can also make a prayer for both in the alternative. If a consumer prays for refund of the amount, without an alternative prayer, the Commission will recognize such a right and grant it, of course subject to the merits of the case. If a consumer seeks alternative reliefs, the Commission will consider the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case and will pass appropriate orders as justice demands. (Para 15-16) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 21(b) - Revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(42) - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - The insertion of the expression 'telecom services' in the definition which is contained in Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019 cannot, for the reasons which we have indicated be construed to mean that telecom services were excluded from the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Act of 1986 - Section 2(o) of the Act of 1986 wide enough to comprehend services of every description including telecom services. (Para 14, 20) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 67 Proviso - Onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act. (Para 34) ECGC Ltd. v. Mokul Shriram EPC JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Contempt petition filed alleging non-compliance of direction issued to the respondents to comply with and deposit the award amount - Respondents held guilty of contempt - Not only have the contemnors unreasonably delayed and defaulted in compliance of the orders of this Court without explaining the cause for such default, or seeking extension of time for compliance; but they have also sought to avoid compliance of the order, even after taking benefit of the extended time period granted for compliance of the same - Respondents shall be heard on sentence. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Jurisdiction of a Court under the Act, would not cease, merely because the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, is executable under law, even without having recourse to contempt proceedings - Irrespective of whether or not a decree is executable, the question to be considered by this Court in determining whether a case for contempt has been made out was, whether, the conduct of the contemnor was such as would make a fit case for awarding punishment for contempt of Court. (Para 13.2,13.3, 15.1) Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - When a party which is required to comply with the terms or directions in an order has not done so within such time as stipulated in the order, two options are available to the party which was required to comply with such order: (a) give an explanation to the Court as to the circumstances due to which the party could not comply with the order of the Court; (b) seek for further time to comply with the order of the Court. If a delay has occurred in complying with the terms of an order and the party which was to comply with the order has not resorted to either of the two aforestated options, then, the party responsible for delay in compliance, may be held to have committed contempt. (Para 15) Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Contract Act, 1872 - Abandonment - The refusal of a contractor to continue to execute the work, unless the reciprocal promises are performed by the other party, cannot be termed as abandonment of contract. A refusal by one party to a contract, may entitle the other party either to sue for breach or to rescind the contract and sue on a quantum meruit for the work already done. (Para 22) Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Member Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331

Contract Act, 1872 - Abandonment - Whenever a material alteration takes place in the terms of the original contract, on account of any act of omission or commission on the part of one of the parties to the contract, it is open to the other party not to perform the original contract. This will not amount to abandonment. Moreover, abandonment is normally understood, in the context of a right and not in the context of a liability or obligation. A party to a contract may abandon his rights under the contract leading to a plea of waiver by the other party, but there is no question of abandoning an obligation. (Para 19) Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Member Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 56 - Doctrine of Frustration discussed - The applicability of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act is not limited to cases of physical impossibility. (Para 41) Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 65 - Appeal against TDSAT order dismissing appellant's refund claim - Dismissed - In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1, the 2G licences which were granted by the Union of India, including to the appellant, were quashed - The appellant was the beneficiary of the "First Come First Serve" policy which was intended to favour a group of private bidding entities at the cost of the public exchequer. The contention of the appellant that it was exculpated from any wrongdoing by the judgment of this Court in CPIL (supra) is patently erroneous. Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Contract Act, 1872 - Section 65 - Restitution - In adjudicating a claim of restitution, the court must determine the illegality which caused the contract to become void and the role the party claiming restitution has played in it. If the party claiming restitution was equally or more responsible for the illegality (in comparison to the defendant), there shall be no cause for restitution. (Para 52) Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Contract Act, 1872; Section 23 - An unconscionable term in a contract is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. (Para 23) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Contract Act, 1872; Section 23 - What is contemplated under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act is law, in all its forms, being immunised from encroachment and infringement by a contract, being enforced. Not only would a Statutory Rule be law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India but it would also be law under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. (Para 69) G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 61

Contract Act, 1872; Section 28 - Insurance - Condition of lodging Insurance claim within a period of one month, extendable by another one month is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and thus void. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sanjesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Court Fees Act, 1870; Section 7 - Appeal against High Court judgment which set aside Trial Court order to file the Court-fees on the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs as claimed by him in the Money suit for compensation- Allowed - A reading of the relief clause would make it abundantly clear that this was a money suit for compensation/damages and not falling under any of the categories mentioned in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, there would be no question at all for the applicability of Section 7(iv) of the Act. It would be a simple case of applicability of Section 7(i) of the Act and ad valorem Court-fees would have to be paid as per Schedule 1 entry. State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Court Fees Act, 1870; Section 7 - Once the suit in question is a money suit for compensation and damages falling under clause (i) of Section 7 of the Act, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount claimed - It is only with respect to the category of suits specified in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act that the plaintiff has the liberty of stating in the plaint the amount at which relief is valued and Court-fees would be payable on the said amount. (Para 21) State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Covid -19 - Ex Gratia Compensation - States directed to reach out to children who were orphaned due to COVID-19 for paying them ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50,000 - Issued directions - Applications/claims of the kin/family members of persons who have succumbed to COVID-19 shall not be rejected on technical grounds. Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 70

Covid -19 - Performance of Dokhmenashini or funeral rights in the Dokhmas belonging to the Parsi Zoroastrian community - Agreed Protocol & Standard Operating Procedure For Handling Dead Bodies Of Parsi Zoroastrian Covid -19 Victims - Protocol and the Standard Operating Procedure comports with the tenets of the Zoroastrian faith, while according with the need expressed by the Union government for the maintenance of safety and hygiene in the context of the Covid -19 pandemic. Surat Parsi Panchayat Board v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Covid -19 - Vaccination - Centre's affidavit to the effect that production of an Aadhar card is not a mandatory pre -condition for availing of vaccination facilities - All concerned authorities shall act in pursuance of the stated policy. (Para 6) Siddharthshankar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 147

COVID Death Compensation Claims - Apprehension about Fake Claims - Nobody can be permitted to avail the ex-gratia compensation by making a false claim and/or submitting the false certificate- National Disaster Management Authority /Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, permitted to carry out the random scrutiny of 5% of the claim applications by the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Maharashtra at the first instance - The concerned States directed to assist in carrying out the scrutiny of the claim applications as ordered above and submit all the necessary particulars of the respective claims that have been attended/processed to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, who shall carry out the scrutiny within a period of three months from today and submit the report before this Court. If it is found that anybody has made a fake claim, the same shall be considered under Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and liable to be punished accordingly. (Para 6, 6.1) Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 312

COVID Death Compensation Claims - Fixed outer limit of sixty days from today to file the claims for compensation in case the death occurred due to COVID-19 prior to 20.03.2022 - For future deaths, ninety days' time is provided from the date of death due to COVID-19 to file the claim for compensation. The earlier order to process the claims and to make the actual payment of compensation within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of claim is ordered to be continued - In case of extreme hardship any claimant could not make an application within the time prescribed, it will be open for the claimant to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee and make the claim through Grievance Redressal Committee which shall be considered by the Grievance Redressal Committee on case to case basis and if it is found by the Grievance Redressal Committee that a particular claimant could not make the claim within the stipulated time which was beyond their control his/her case may be considered on merits - Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ministry of Home Affairs – Union of India and all the concerned States are directed to give wide publicity to the present order through print and electronic media so that the claimants can know the time limit fixed by this Court for making claims. (Para 3-5) Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 312

Covid-19 - Extension of Limitation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 23(4), 29A - Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. (Para 5) In Re Cognizance for extension of Limitation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Covid-19 - Extension of Limitation - Period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings - The balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022 - In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. (Para 5) In Re Cognizance for extension of Limitation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Criminal Cases - Role of State - In criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Criminal Cases - Where it is found that the accused are released on bail in serious offences, the State Government/legal department of State Government and the Director of Prosecution shall take prompt decision and challenge the order passed by the trial court and/or the High Court as the case may be. (Para 11) Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Criminal Investigation - Delay in recording Section 161 CrPC Statement -An inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution's case but only to be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case. There may be adequate circumstances for not examining a witness at an appropriate time. However, non-examination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. It only causes doubt in the mind of the Court, which is required to be cleared. Similarly, a statement recorded, as in the present case, the investigation report is expected to be sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. A long, unexplained delay, would give room for suspicion. (Para 28) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Criminal Law - Appeal against Uttarakhand HC judgment convicting accused appellant under Sections 363, 366-B, 370(4) and 506 of the IPC, and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act- Dismissed - The offences alleged against the appellant were rightly invoked and fully substantiated. Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Criminal Trial - Alibi - The burden on the accused is rather heavy and he is required to establish the plea of alibi with certitude- The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence. (Para 16, 17) Pappu Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Criminal Trial - A mere chart giving description of offences, numbers and the sections of the offences and about the nature of offences cannot be taken into account at the stage of conviction - If the Prosecution wanted the Court to take note of the fact that there were other matters in which accused were involved, the concerned Chargesheets should have been produced on record along with sufficient details including the judgments or orders of conviction. A mere chart cannot be taken as proof of the involvement of the accused in other crimes either at the stage of conviction or sentence. (Para 32, 22) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal Trial - Appeal against High Court judgment reversing conviction of accused in a murder case - Allowed - The contradictions, if any, are not material contradictions which can affect the case of the prosecution as a whole - Delay of seven hours in lodging FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case - Conviction recorded by Trial Court restored. M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Criminal Trial - Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction of accused in a murder case - dismissed - The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - The fact that the trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during the appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal. Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully established - Principles discussed. Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused - motive not relevant in a case of direct evidence. Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Criminal trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused - motive not relevant in a case of direct evidence. Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else - Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11, 14) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Criminal Trial - Eye Witness - The evidence of eye -witness cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed. Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Criminal Trial - Guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters' of the High Court of Delhi - The definition of "vulnerable witness" contained in Clause 3(a) expanded. (Para 5 (i)) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Criminal Trial - Inquest report is not substantive evidence. The objective is to find out whether a person who has died under suspicious circumstances, what may be the apparent cause of his death. (Para 32) Pappu Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Criminal Trial - Long adjournments being given after the completion of the chief examination, only helps the defense to win them over at times, with the passage of time - The trial courts shall endeavor to complete the examination of the private witnesses both chief and cross on the same day as far as possible - The trial courts to take up the examination of the private witnesses first, before proceeding with that of the official witnesses. (Para 39) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Criminal Trial - Major difference in recording the number of injuries suffered by the deceased in the inquest report and the post-mortem report, not fatal to prosecution case. (Para 32) Pappu Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Criminal Trial - Medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged - It is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. (Para 18) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Criminal Trial - Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. (Para 10) M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Criminal Trial - Murder - Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Criminal Trial - Murder - Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Criminal Trial - Once the witness is in the witness box and is being cross examined every endeavour must be made to ensure that the cross examination is completed on that day. Neetu Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 349

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Accused's involvement in other crimes may be a relevant factor provided the concerned material in the form of concluded judgments in the other matters are brought on record in a manner known to law. The established involvement in other matters would then certainly be relevant while dealing with the question whether the concerned accused is required to be dealt with sternly or leniently. (Para 23) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Appellant convicted under Section 376, 363, 366, 307, 354 and sentenced to life imprisonment sought modification of sentence- Sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment - Appellant has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 11 years as on date - The ends of justice would be met by directing that instead and in place of the sentence of life imprisonment which has been imposed for the conviction under Section 376, the appellant shall stand sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment. Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - In determining the quantum of sentence, the Court must bear in mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all other relevant circumstances including the age of the offender - The principles of restorative justice find place within the Indian Constitution and severity of sentence is not the only determinant for doing justice to the victims. (Para 7, 8) Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Restorative Justice - To give opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail - The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender. (Para 43) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Criminal Trial - The approximate time of death before examination, as indicated in the post -mortem report, cannot be applied as something of mathematical precision. (Para 36) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Criminal Trial - The court conducting the trial/appeal is not only obliged to protect the rights of the accused but also the rights of the victim, and the interest of the society at large. The Judge presiding over the criminal trial has not only to see that innocent man is not punished but has also to see that guilty man does not escape. Both are his public duties required to be discharged very diligently to maintain the public confidence and uphold the majesty of the law. (Para 35) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Criminal Trial - The court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal Trial - The evidence of the investigating officer is not indispensable. The evidence is required for corroboration and contradiction of the other material witnesses as he is the one who links and presents them before the court - Even assuming that the investigating officer has not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is not entitled for acquittal solely on that basis, when there are other incriminating evidence available on record. (Para 25) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Criminal Trial - The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt. (Para 46) Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234

Criminal Trial - The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions - Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. (Para 17) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Criminal Trial - Unnecessarily weightage shall not be given to some minor contradictions - Deposition of injured eye witness has a greater reliability and credibility. (Para 12) M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Criminal Trial - Vulnerable Witnesses - The fairness of the process of trial as well as the pursuit of substantive justice are determined in a significant measure by the manner in which statements of vulnerable witnesses are recorded - Creation of a barrier free environment where depositions can be recorded freely without constraining limitations, both physical and emotional - Directions issued. (Para 3-5) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80

Criminal Trial - The test which is applied of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the endeavour should be to nick pick and somehow find some excuse to obtain acquittal. (Para 36) Pappu Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Customary Law - Mizo Customary Law - Inheritance - Inheritance depends upon the responsibility carried out by a legal heir to look after the elders in the family - It depends upon the question as to whether a person supports the deceased in his old age or not - Even if a natural heir does not support his parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance - Even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the person until his death could inherit the properties of that person. Kaithuami v. Ralliani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 129E - High Court which upheld the order passed by CESTAT finding that the appellant has not made pre -deposit - Dismissed - Rejected the contention of appellant that in view of the fact that the act relates to the year 2013, he must be governed by Section 129E prior to the substitution - When the appellant is not being called upon to pay the full amount but is only asked to pay the amount which is fixed under the substituted provision, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 129E - Under the new regime, the amount to be deposited to maintain the appeal has been reduced from 100% to 7.5% - The discretion which was made available to the appellate body to scale down the pre -deposit has been taken away - In regard to stay applications and appeals which were pending before any Appellate Authority prior to commencement of The Finance (No.2) Act 2014, Section 129E as substituted would not apply. (Para 8) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Customs Act, 1962; Section 129E - High Court which upheld the order passed by CESTAT finding that the appellant has not made pre-deposit - Dismissed - Rejected the contention of appellant that in view of the fact that the act relates to the year 2013, he must be governed by Section 129E prior to the substitution - When the appellant is not being called upon to pay the full amount but is only asked to pay the amount which is fixed under the substituted provision, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Customs Act, 1962; Section 129E - Under the new regime, the amount to be deposited to maintain the appeal has been reduced from 100% to 7.5% - The discretion which was made available to the appellate body to scale down the pre-deposit has been taken away - In regard to stay applications and appeals which were pending before any Appellate Authority prior to commencement of The Finance (No.2) Act 2014, Section 129E as substituted would not apply. (Para 8) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Customs Act, 1962; Sections 87, 130(2), 130E(b) - Dispute concerning an exemption cannot be equated with a dispute in relation to the rate of duty - Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption as claimed or not, such an issue cannot be said to be an issue relating, amongst other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty. (Para 4) Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Customs Act, 1962; Sections 87, 130(2), 130E(b) - SLP against High Court order which rejected preliminary objection to the appeal filed by Revenue holding that the principal question in the present case is, not in relation to the rate of duty but determining whether, vessel AE, is a foreign­ going vessel or not and if the vessel AE is a foreign ­going vessel, whether Section 87 of the Act would be applicable or not - Dismissed - With respect to such an issue, against the order passed by the CESTAT, the appeal would be maintainable before the High Court under Section 130 of the Act. Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Dam Safety Act 2021 - Mullaperiyar Dam Dispute between Kerala and Tamil Nadu - Supreme Court reconstitutes Supervisory Committee- Confers it powers of the National Dam Safefy Authority under the Dam Safety Act - Chief Secretaries of States liable for vioaltion of committee directions- The reconstituted Supervisory Committee will decide all outstanding matters related to Mullaperiyar Dam's safety and conduct a safety review afresh- the Supervisory Committee, in terms of this order, is deemed to be discharging all the functions and powers of the NDSA until a regular NDSA becomes functional under the 2021 Act and more so, orders of this Court in that regard. Dr. Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Dam Safety Act 2021 -We express a sanguine hope that the competent authority may take appropriate steps to ensure that the regular NDSA under the 2021 Act is established at the earliest, as it cannot brook delay. Dr. Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Death Sentence - Appeal against Madhya Pradesh HC judgment which confirmed Death Sentence of man accused of rape and murder of 4 year old girl - Conviction upheld - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment - Imposed the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC. Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Death Sentence - Rarest of Rare doctrine discussed. (Para 41-42) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006; Regulation 6(2)(h) - Amended Regulation 6(2)(h) has a direct nexus with the object to be achieved, i.e., providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the students - It is made in order to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure. (Para 33, 41) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Dentists Act, 1948 - Appeal against Rajasthan HC judgment which struck down notification amending Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 - Allowed. Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Dentists Act, 1948; Section 10A- It is within the competence of the Council to make Regulations prescribing any other conditions, which are otherwise not found in clauses (a) to (f) of sub­section (7) of Section 10A of the Act. (Para 29-30) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Detention - In the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty bound to do so with utmost despatch - The time period of over two months spent in doing so, cannot countenanced. It does not require such a long time to examine the representation concerning preventive detention of the detenu. S. Amutha v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Case - The acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction - In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. (Para 13) State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304

Disciplinary Proceedings - Bank employee was dismissed after conducting a disciplinary proceedings - Appellate authority dismissed his appeal - Industrial Tribunal held that the punishment awarded to the employee of dismissal is not commensurate with the charge levelled against him - In writ petition filed against Tribunal order, the High Court refused to interfere with the Order for the reason that the respondent employee by that time had retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2007. Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal order and observed: Merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence. (Para 11) United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Disciplinary Proceedings - Effect of Acquittal - An acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives. (Para 10.4) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case of another employee higher punishment is warranted and inflicted by the disciplinary authority after due application of mind. There cannot be any negative discrimination. The punishment/penalty to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like the position of the employee in the department, role attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him. (Para 11) Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Disciplinary Proceedings - The only requirement is that a delinquent officer must be given fair opportunity to represent his case and that there is no absolute right in his favour to be represented through the agent of his choice. (Para 8) Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Disciplinary Proceedings - The standard of proof in departmental proceedings, being based on preponderance of probability, is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt - The test of criminal proceedings ought not to be applied in departmental proceedings to call for handwriting experts to examine signatures. Indian Overseas Bank v. Om Prakash Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Disciplinary Proceedings - There is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent officer's to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. (Para 7) Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right - The failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary - The requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non­arbitrariness, which is a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh, what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant - A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non­arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. (Para 40) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - In taxing matters, the doctrine of promissory estoppel as such is not applicable and the Revenue can take a position different from its earlier stand in a case with established distinguishing features. (Para 20.3) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Doctrine of promissory estoppel - The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable remedy and has to be moulded depending on the facts of each case and not straitjacketed into pigeonholes. In other words, there cannot be any hard and fast rule for applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel but the doctrine has to evolve and expand itself so as to do justice between the parties and ensure equity between the parties. (Para 20.2) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - In declaration of the law, the doctrine of prospective overruling can be applied by this Court to save past transactions under earlier decisions superseded or statutes held unconstitutional. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - The law declared by the Supreme Court is the law of the land and in so declaring, the operation of the law can be restricted to the future, thereby saving past transactions. The doctrine of prospective overruling is in essence a recognition of the principle that the Court moulds the reliefs claimed to meet the justice of the case- Court can apply its decision prospectively, i.e., from the date of its judgment to save past transactions. (Para 34) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - The observation made in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 that there shall be no prospective overruling unless indicated in the particular decision is obiter – The casual and unnecessary observation in M.A. Murthy (supra) that there shall be no prospective overruling unless it is so indicated in a particular decision is obiter and not binding. (Para 41) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Education - Central Board of Secondary Education - CBSE shall provide an option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained in the subject for final declaration of his/her results - Clause 28 to the extent – "As per this policy, marks secured in later examination will be considered final". This condition stands effaced from the policy. Sukriti v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 27

Education - Reservation in Admission - Appeal against Manipur High Court's order upholding the decision of Manipur University to reduce reservation in admission for Scheduled Caste candidates from 15% to 2%, OBC quota from 27% to 17% and increase for Scheduled Tribes candidates from 7.5% to 31%, in terms of amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 - Dismissed - After amendment of the Reservation Act, the respondent No. 1 – University had to follow the reservation norms of 2% for SC candidates, 31% for ST candidates and 17% for OBC candidates which is in consonance with the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act. Kshetrimayum Mahesh v. Manipur University, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Electricity Duty Act, 2016 (Maharashtra); Section 3(2) - Charitable Education Institutions are not entitled to the exemption from payment of electricity duty post 08.08.2016 - Exemption provision need to be interpreted literally and when the language used in exemption provision is simple, clear and unambiguous, the same has to be applied rigorously, strictly and literally. (Para 11.4) State of Maharashtra v. Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 32

Employee State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(22) - "Conveyance allowance" is equivalent to the traveling allowance and therefore any conveyance allowance/traveling allowance is excluded from the definition of "wages". Talema Electronic v. ESI Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Appeal against High Court order which directed that the interest @ 12% p.a. shall become payable from the period after expiry of one month from the date of the Commissioner's order - Allowed - While directing the employer to pay the interest from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner, the High Court has not at all considered Section 4A(3)(a) and has considered Section 4A(3)(b) only, which is the penalty provision - Claimants shall be entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner from the date of the incident. Shobha v. Chairman, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - In the absence of any clear demarcation of duties of a Helper or a Cleaner and in view of the fact that Helper and Cleaner are interchangeably used, therefore, declining claim for the reason that deceased was engaged as a helper and not Cleaner is wholly unjustified. (Para 8) Mangilal Vishnoi v. National Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - The liability to pay the compensation would arise from the date on which the deceased died for which he is entitled to the compensation and therefore, the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner. (Para 4.1) Shobha v. Chairman, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 14B - Any default or delay in the payment of EPF contribution by the employer under the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B - Mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities. (Para 17) Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund Organization, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 (Haryana State) - Constitutional Validity - Interim order passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court staying the implementation of the Act set aside - Stay of legislation can only be when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional - Sufficient reasons should be given for staying legislations. State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal by Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd against an NGT order holding that its manufacturing units, which did not have prior Environmental Clearance (EC) could not be allowed to operate - Allowed - The question in this case is, whether a unit contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood to hundreds of people, which has been set up pursuant to requisite approvals from the concerned statutory authorities, and has applied for Ex post facto EC, should be closed down for the technical irregularity of want of prior environmental clearance, pending the issuance of EC, even though it may not cause pollution and/or may be found to comply with the required norms. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative, more so when the HSPCB was itself under the misconception that no environment clearance was required for the units in question. Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Environmental Clearance - Need to comply with the requirement to obtain EC is non-negotiable. A unit can be set up or allowed to expand subject to compliance of the requisite environmental norms. EC is granted on condition of the suitability of the site to set up the unit, from the environmental angle, and also existence of necessary infrastructural facilities and equipment for compliance of environmental norms. To protect future generations and to ensure sustainable development, it is imperative that pollution laws be strictly enforced. Under no circumstances can industries, which pollute, be allowed to operate unchecked and degrade the environment. (Para 62) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Ex post facto Environmental Clearance - The 1986 Act does not prohibit Ex post facto Environmental Clearance - It should not be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances taking into account all relevant environmental factors. Where the adverse consequences of denial of Ex post facto approval outweigh the consequences of regularization of operations by grant of Ex post facto approval, and the establishment concerned otherwise conforms to the requisite pollution norms, Ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law, in strict conformity with the applicable Rules, Regulations and/or Notifications. The deviant industry may be penalised by an imposition of heavy penalty on the principle of 'polluter pays' and the cost of restoration of environment may be recovered from it - An establishment contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood ought not to be closed down only on the ground of the technical irregularity of not obtaining prior Environmental Clearance irrespective of whether or not the unit actually causes pollution. (Para 63, 65) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Environmental Law - Appeal against NGT order directing that mining activity shall not be permitted within and in the vicinity of Simplipal - Hadagarh - Kuldiha – Simplipal elephant corridor - Disposed of - Implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan as suggested by the Standing Committee of NBWL before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone - Complete the process of declaration of the traditional elephant corridor as conservation reserve expeditiously. The mining operations of 97 quarries shall be permitted only thereafter. Binay Kumar Dalei v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 233

Estoppel - There can be no estoppel against a statute or regulations having a statutory effect. (Para 23) Employees State Insurance Co. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Evidence Act - Section 106 - Last Seen Theory - When 'last seen' evidence is cogent and trustworthy which establishes that the deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the accused; and is coupled with the evidence of discovery of the dead body of deceased at a far away and lonely place on the information furnished by the accused, the burden is on the accused to explain his whereabouts after he was last seen with the deceased and to show if, and when, the deceased parted with his company as also the reason for his knowledge about the location of the dead body. (Para 31) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Evidence Act 1872; Section 27 - Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24 to 26. Admissibility under Section 27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered. This provision merely facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequence of information received from a person in custody, accused of an offense. Thus, it incorporates the theory of "confirmation by subsequent facts" facilitating a link to the chain of events. It is for the prosecution to prove that the information received from the accused is relatable to the fact discovered. The object is to utilize it for the purpose of recovery as it ultimately touches upon the issue pertaining to the discovery of a new fact through the information furnished by the accused. Therefore, Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24 to 26 meant for a specific purpose and thus be construed as a proviso. (Para 31) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Evidence Act 1872; Section 27 - The onus is on the prosecution to prove the fact discovered from the information obtained from the accused. This is also for the reason that the information has been obtained while the accused is still in the custody of the police. Having understood the aforesaid object behind the provision, any recovery under Section 27 will have to satisfy the Court's conscience. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the accused, by other means. The Court will have to be conscious of the witness's credibility and the other evidence produced when dealing with a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (Para 32) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Evidence Act, 1872 - "Matters" - Matters are necessary, concomitant material factors to prove a fact. All evidence would be "matters" but not vice versa. In other words, matters could be termed as a genus of which evidence would be a species. Matters also add strength to the evidence giving adequate ammunition in the Court's sojourn in deciphering the truth. Thus, the definition of "matters" is exhaustive, and therefore, much wider than that of "evidence". However, there is a caveat, as the court is not supposed to consider a matter which acquires the form of an evidence when it is barred in law. Matters are required for a court to believe in the existence of a fact - Matters do give more discretion and flexibility to the court in deciding the existence of a fact. Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - A mere non -examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it. (Para 31) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Chance Witness - A chance witness is the one who happens to be at the place of occurrence of an offence by chance, and therefore, not as a matter of course. In other words, he is not expected to be in the said place. A person walking on a street witnessing the commission of an offence can be a chance witness. Merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed though a little more scrutiny may be required at times. This again is an aspect which is to be looked into in a given case by the court. (Para 26) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Classification of Evidence - circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc. Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Definition of "Proved" - The definition of the word "proved" though gives an impression of a mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act. This clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the "matters before it". The importance is to the degree of probability in proving a fact through the consideration of the matters before the court. What is required for a court to decipher is the existence of a fact and its proof by a degree of probability, through a logical influence. (Para 13) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Evidence Act is an "Adjective Law" highlighting and aiding substantive law - It is neither wholly procedural nor substantive, though trappings of both could be felt. (Para 12) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Hostile Witness - Testimony of a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party -A witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross examination. Once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion. (Para 21) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Related Witness - A related witness cannot be termed as an interested witness per se. One has to see the place of occurrence along with other circumstances. A related witness can also be a natural witness. If an offence is committed within the precincts of the deceased, the presence of his family members cannot be ruled out, as they assume the position of natural witnesses. When their evidence is clear, cogent and withstood the rigor of cross examination, it becomes sterling, not requiring further corroboration. A related witness would become an interested witness, only when he is desirous of implicating the accused in rendering a conviction, on purpose. (Para 28) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused - Burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in section 106 of the Evidence Act when the prosecution could not prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused. (Para 15 - 16) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Definition of "Evidence" - Factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the existence of a fact. (Para 12) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Principles as to the circumstances under which a dying declaration may be accepted, without corroboration: (1) that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated; (2) that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; (3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; (4) that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; (5) that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character, and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties. State of U.P. v. Veerpal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There can be a conviction solely based upon the dying declaration without corroboration - If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration. State of U.P. v. Veerpal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 33 - Section 33 is an exception to the general rule which mandates adequate facility for cross examining a witness. However, in a case where a witness after the completion of the chief examination and while subjecting him to a substantial and rigorous cross examination, did not choose to get into the witness box on purpose, it is for the court to utilize the said evidence appropriately. The issues over which the evidence is completed could be treated as such by the court and then proceed. Resultantly, the issues for which the cross examination is not over would make the entire examination as inadmissible. Ultimately, it is for the court to decide the aforesaid aspect. (Para 24) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it. Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the matters before it. (Para 17) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - When the court is convinced with the quality of the evidence produced, notwithstanding the classification, it becomes the best evidence. Such testimony being natural, adding to the degree of probability, the court has to make reliance upon it in proving a fact. (Para 29) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - When the court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point of view of a common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in the case. (Para 18) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters. (Para 20) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Accused's statement recorded on a DVD and played in Court - Such a statement is in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act. If at all the accused were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code. Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence. (Para 20) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts - In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. (Para 19) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There is no absolute proposition of law that in a case when at the time when the dying declaration was recorded, there was no emergency and/or any danger to the life, the dying declaration should be discarded as a whole (Para 6) - Merely because the weapon used is not recovered cannot be a ground not to rely upon the dying declaration. (Para 9) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There is no absolute proposition of law that in a case when at the time when the dying declaration was recorded, there was no emergency and/or any danger to the life, the dying declaration should be discarded as a whole (Para 6) - Merely because the weapon used is not recovered cannot be a ground not to rely upon the dying declaration. (Para 9) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 45, 47, 73 - Appeal against Orissa High Court judgment which quashed the order taking cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the opinion of the handwriting expert on the disputed signatures was non-conclusive - Allowed. Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 45, 47, 73 - Opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of providing the signature and handwriting of a person - The signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73. Manorama Naik v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Evidence Act, 1882; Section 106 - Last Seen Together - Once the theory of "last seen together" was established, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to under which circumstances, he had parted the company of the victim -Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of the prosecution on the accused, nor requires the accused to furnish an explanation with regard to the facts which are especially within his knowledge, nonetheless furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of "last seen together" as propounded by the prosecution is proved against him, to know as to how and when the accused parted the company of the victim. (Para 26) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

EWS reservation - The reasons for allowing EWS reservation for the current academic year 2021-2022 provided. Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Excise Act, 1910 (U.P.) - Section 3 - IMFL destroyed in fire answers to the description of "spirit", "liquor" and "excisable article" within the meaning of Clauses (8) (11) and (22-a) of Section 3 of the Act of 1910, for being an intoxicating liquor containing alcohol obtained by distillation. (Para 36) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Extra­judicial confession - A weak piece of evidence - Unless such a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, the conviction solely on the basis of the same, without corroboration, would not be justified. Union of India v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Madras High Court Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996 - Rule 52 - A free copy may be supplied as per the requirement under the Family Courts Act but that is a far cry from holding that an appeal can be carried without a certified copy - Rejected argument that that an appeal can be maintained within thirty days even if it is in the absence of a certified copy. (Para 22, 23) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Madras High Court Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996 - Rule 52 - A free copy may be supplied as per the requirement under the Family Courts Act but that is a far cry from holding that an appeal can be carried without a certified copy - Rejected argument that that an appeal can be maintained within thirty days even if it is in the absence of a certified copy. (Para 22, 23) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19, 20 - Limitation Act, 1963- Section 12, 29(2) - The period spent in obtaining the copy can be excluded in calculating the period of limitation to file matrimonial appeals under Family Courts Act - Nothing inconsistent in Section 12 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act - Section 20 will not override the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19, 20 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 12, 29(2) - The period spent in obtaining the copy can be excluded in calculating the period of limitation to file matrimonial appeals under Family Courts Act - Nothing inconsistent in Section 12 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act - Section 20 will not override the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - The Family Courts Act is not a standalone Act. It draws sustenance from Acts like the Hindu Marriage Act. This is for the reason that a petition within the meaning, for instance, of the Hindu Marriage Act, after a Family Court is established in India, is to be dealt with by the Family Court, on the grounds as provided under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - The Family Courts Act is not a standalone Act. It draws sustenance from Acts like the Hindu Marriage Act. This is for the reason that a petition within the meaning, for instance, of the Hindu Marriage Act, after a Family Court is established in India, is to be dealt with by the Family Court, on the grounds as provided under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Films and Television Institute of India - Majority view of the Committee appointed by SC accepted - Individuals with color blindness should be permitted to enroll for ALL courses offered by FTII. There should be no bar to admissions to the FTII for colorblind individuals - FTII should make reasonable accommodation in their curriculum for candidates with color blindness, in all courses where there is a bar to the admission of colorblind individuals. (Para 26-35) Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 429

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 - It is open to the State to have a regime which may completely prohibit receipt of foreign donation, as no right inheres in the citizen to receive foreign contribution (donation). (Para 74) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010; Section 12(1A) and 17(1) - Opening of main FCRA account in the designated bank as per the law made by the Parliament in that regard, cannot be brushed aside on the specious argument of some inconvenience being caused to the registered associations. (Para 76) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010; Section 7 - Complete prohibition regarding transfer of foreign contribution to third party - The transfer within the meaning of Section 7, would be a case of per se (simplicitor) transfer by the recipient of foreign contribution to third party without requiring to engage in the definite activities of cultural, economic, educational or social programme of the recipient of foreign contribution, for which the recipient had obtained a certificate of registration from the Central Government - If the recipient of foreign contribution engages services of some third party or outsources its certain activities to third person, whilst undertaking definite activities itself and had to pay therefor, it would be a case of utilisation. (Para 47) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 - Constitutional Validity upheld - Amended provisions vide the 2020 Act, namely, Sections 7, 12(1A), 12A and 17 of the FCRA Act, 2010, are intra vires the Constitution and the Principal Act - Section 12A read down and construed as permitting the key functionaries/office bearers of the applicant (associations/NGOs) who are Indian nationals, to produce Indian Passport for the purpose of their identification. (Para 87) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Foreigners Act, 1946 - Appellant Engineer accused of facilitating visit by two Chinese citizens who were on tourist visas to Rewa Solar Plant Project site - No indication or allegation that the appellant was aware and had knowledge that the Chinese citizens had traveled on tourist visas - Criminal proceedings quashed. Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 14C - Abetment - Mere passivity and insouciance will not tantamount to offence of abetment - The word 'abet' is an essential ingredient - 'Abet' means to aid, to encourage or countenance. An abetment of the offence occurs when a person instigates any person to do that offence or engages with another person(s) in doing that thing. Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Fraud vitiates all actions. (Para 17) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi, 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Uttar Pradesh); Section 2(b) - Even a single crime committed by a 'Gang' is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the 'Gang' - There can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. (Para 9-10) Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411

Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Uttar Pradesh) - All provisions are to ensure that the offences under the Gangsters Act should be given preference and should be tried expeditiously and that too, by the Special Courts, to achieve the object and purpose of the enactment of the Gangsters Act. (Para 8) Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411

General Clauses Act, 1897 - The principles of the General Clauses Act can be made applicable to statutes made by the State Legislatures as well. (Para 20) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Kerala) - The surcharge on sales tax levied by the said Act is nothing but an increase of the basic sales tax levied under Section 5(1) of the KGST Act, as such the surcharge is nothing but a sales tax- A surcharge on a tax is nothing but the enhancement of the tax. (Para 14.4) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Goods and Services Tax - Non-extension of e-way bill would not automatically amount to evasion of tax, especially when the non-delivery of goods within the validity period of the e-way bill was due to external factors, like, traffic blockage. Asst. Commissioner v. Satyam Shivam Papers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 87

Hawking - Any hawker can be permitted to hawk in the market only as per the hawking policy and not de hors the same - A hawker has no right to insist that he may be permitted to keep his goods and wares at the place where he is hawking overnight. (Para 1). Madan Lal v. NDMC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 373

Hindu Law - Sources of Hindu law and Judicial precedents discussed - Ancient text as also the Smritis, the Commentaries written by various renowned learned persons and even judicial pronouncements have recognized the rights of several female heirs, the wives and the daughter's being the foremost of them. (Para 21 -65) Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion - Merely because on account of the death of the appellant's mother, the respondent visited her matrimonial home in December 2009 and stayed there only for one day, it cannot be said that there was a resumption of cohabitation. (Para 11) Debananda Tamuli v. Smti Kakumoni Kataky, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion - The reasons for a dispute between husband and wife are always very complex. Every matrimonial dispute is different from another. Whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence. (Para 8) Debananda Tamuli v. Smti Kakumoni Kataky, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end - There should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. (Para 7) Debananda Tamuli v. Smti Kakumoni Kataky, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Section 15 - Filing of appeal must be treated as having been presented within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act. The argument that not only must the appellant file the appeal, or prefer the appeal or present the appeal, but he must also ensure that the appeal comes on the judicial side of the High Court is clearly without any basis. (Para 27) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Section 15 - Filing of appeal must be treated as having been presented within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act. The argument that not only must the appellant file the appeal, or prefer the appeal or present the appeal, but he must also ensure that the appeal comes on the judicial side of the High Court is clearly without any basis. (Para 27) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Section 13 - Custody Petition - The consideration of the well-being and welfare of the child must get precedence over the individual or personal rights of the parents - the rights of the parents are irrelevant when a Court decides the custody issue. (Para 26, 32) Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Sub -section (2) of Section 14 inter alia applies to a Will which may create independent and new title in favour of females for the first time and is not a recognition of a pre -existing right. In such cases of a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and Section 14(1) of the said Act will not operate in that sphere. (Para 30) Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) - The objective of Section 14(1) is to create an absolute interest in case of a limited interest of the wife where such limited estate owes its origin to law as it stood then. The objective cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self -acquired property is unable to execute a Will giving a limited estate to a wife if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of. If we were to hold so it would imply that if the wife is disinherited under the Will it would be sustainable but if a limited estate is given it would mature into an absolute interest irrespective of the intent of the testator. (Para 31) Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14 - The legislative intent of enacting Section 14(I) of the Act was to remedy the limitation of a Hindu woman who could not claim absolute interest in the properties inherited by her but only had a life interest in the estate so inherited. (Para 69) Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 15 - Inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, goes back to the source - If a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. In case, a female Hindu dies leaving behind her husband or any issue, then Section 15(1)(a) comes into operation and the properties left behind including the properties which she inherited from her parents would devolve simultaneously upon her husband and her issues as provided in Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. (Para 72-73) Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Hindu Undivided Family - Joint Family Property - Gift - A Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose' - Term 'pious purpose' is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose - A deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed 'out of love and affection' does not come within the scope of the term 'pious purpose'. (Para 13) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Hindu Undivided Family - Joint Family Property - Power to alienate only in three situations, namely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family - Where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained. (Para 12) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Uttar Pradesh) - If subletting is in derogation of the terms of the Lease Deed, then the sub-lessee continues to be the ostensible tenure holder of land and the lessee the real holder. (Para 31-32) Hardev Singh v. Prescribed Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 44

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Appeal against Gujarat High Court judgment extending the immunity under the "Income Declaration Scheme" (IDS) to an assessee who was not the declarant under the scheme - Allowed - The High Court fell into error, in holding that the sequitur to a declaration under the IDS can lead to immunity (from taxation) in the hands of a non-declarant. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. MR Shah Logistics, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Surcharge or tax were never intended to be included in the net of amended Section 40(a)(iib)(A) or 40(a)(iib)(B) of the Income­tax Act, 1961. (Para 14.5) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 37(1) - Explanation 1 contains within its ambit all such activities which are illegal/prohibited by law and/or punishable. (Para 17) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 37(1) - Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 - Pharmaceutical companies' gifting freebies to doctors, etc. is clearly "prohibited by law", and not allowed to be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1) - When acceptance of freebies is punishable by the MCI, pharmaceutical companies cannot be granted the tax benefit for providing such freebies, and thereby (actively and with full knowledge) enabling the commission of the act which attracts such opprobrium. (Para 33, 22) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 37(1) - Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 - Denial of the tax benefit cannot be construed as penalizing the assessee pharmaceutical company. Only its participation in what is plainly an action prohibited by law, precludes the assessee from claiming it as a deductible expenditure. (Para 27) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The 'fee' or 'charge' as mentioned in Section 40(a)(iib) is clear in terms and that will take in only 'fee' or 'charge' as mentioned therein or any fee or charge by whatever name called, but cannot cover tax or surcharge on tax and such taxes are outside the scope and ambit of Section 40(a)(iib)(A) and Section 40(a)(iib)(B) of the Act. (Para 14.3) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The aspect of 'exclusivity' under Section 40(a)(iib) has to be viewed from the nature of undertaking on which levy is imposed and not on the number of undertakings on which the levy is imposed- Exclusivity is to be considered with reference to nature of licence and not on number of State owned Undertakings. (Para 14.2) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax, is not a fee or charge coming within the scope of Section 40(a)(iib)(A) or 40(a)(iib)(B), as such same is not an amount which can be disallowed under the said provision. (Para 16) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Turnover tax is also outside the purview of Section 40(a) (iib)(A) and 40(a)(iib)(B). (Para 15) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 12AA - Registration of a trust or institution - Even if in a case where the registration application under Section 12AA is not decided within six months, there shall not be any deemed registration. Harshit Foundation v Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 194A(1) - Any person who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash/cheque or draft whichever is earlier deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force - the Union Bank of India did not deduct TDS at source while paying interest to Agra Development Authority, but subsequently deducted and deposited the same within the financial year. Union Bank of India v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) - Provided for exemption from mandate of Section 194A(1), inter alia, for paying interest to such corporations as notified by the Central Government - Central Government vide notification dated 22.10.1970 notified corporation established by a statute for the purpose of exemption - Applying the same principle as in Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur And Anr. v. Canara Bank (2018) 9 SCC 322, the Apex Court permitted Agra Development Authority to be considered as a corporation established by a statute - Therefore, Union Bank of India was eligible for the exemption. Union Bank of India v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 2 (1A) - Companies Act, 1956; Section 394 (2), 481 - Despite amalgamation, the business, enterprise and undertaking of the transferee or amalgamated company- which ceases to exist, after amalgamation, is treated as a continuing one, and any benefits, by way of carry forward of losses (of the transferor company), depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee - Whether corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case. (Para 42) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 254 - Limitation to to entertain fresh claim would apply to the "assessing authority", but not impinge upon the plenary powers of the ITAT bestowed under Section 254 of the Act - Rejected contention that ITAT cannot entertain fresh claim for the first time. (Para 10-11) Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 37 - Loss suffered owing to exchange fluctuation while repaying loan can be regarded as revenue expenditure - The exchange fluctuation loss is an expenditure incidental to carrying on of business and comes within the purview of section 37 of the Act as the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. (Para 3, 7-9) Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Appeal against orders of the Karnataka High Court, which had permitted Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College to admit students for the academic year 2018-2019 in view of the permission granted for the year 2019-2020 - Allowed - The finding that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is totally erroneous. Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Indian Medicine Central Council (Post­Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 - No medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post graduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Prior to such a permission being granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to be followed. (Para 28) Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which held that an employer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output - Disposed - The impugned judgment protects the interest of the appellant and the workmen by prescribing the right procedure which should be followed in case the appellant is of the opinion that the workmen, though present on duty, are not working and are not giving the agreed production on the basis of which wages and incentives have been fixed. Bata India Ltd. vs. Workmen of Bata India Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Tribunal - If irregularity or illegality committed by a Tribunal touches upon the jurisdiction to try and determine over a subject dispute is altogether beyond its purview, that question would go to the root of the matter and it would be within the jurisdiction of the superior court to correct such error. (Para 15) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Tribunal - The Tribunal could not go beyond the disputes that were referred to it - The scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is wide and in appropriate cases it has the jurisdiction even to make a contract. (Para 14, 25) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Right of minority workmen to raise industrial dispute - A minority union of workers may raise an industrial dispute even if another union which consists of the majority of them enters into a settlement with the employer. (Para 20) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18 - Binding nature of a settlement on all persons employed in an establishment discussed. (Para 16 - 17) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - Prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act is necessarily a pre­existing benefit or one flowing from a pre­existing right. The difference between a pre­existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act while the latter does not. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The principle of limited interference would apply to a proceeding of this nature under the 1947 Act. (Para 25) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act,1947 - Section 33C(2) - Not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer - employee relationship - In an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appeal challenging NCLAT order which reversed the order of the NCLT wherein it had held that the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not time-barred - Allowed - The failure of the NCLAT as the first appellate authority to look into a very vital aspect such as this, vitiates its order, especially when NCLT has recorded a specific finding of fact - Remanded. S.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Difference between financial and operational creditors in the nature of their role in the Committee of Creditors - It is assumed the operational creditors will be unwilling to take the risk of restructuring their debts in order to make the corporate debtor a going concern. Thus, their debt is not seen as a long -term investment in the going concern status of the corporate debtor, which would incentivize them to restructure it, but merely as a one -off transaction with the corporate debtor for certain goods or services. (Para 32) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – IBC proceedings should not become recovery proceedings - IBC not akin to a recovery legislation for creditors, but is a legislation beneficial for the corporate debtor. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - NCLT/NCLAT must make a reasonable assessment of the fees and expenses payable to the Interim Resolution Profession and cannot pass an order in an ad-hoc manner. (Para 16) Devarajan Raman v. Bank of India Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 24

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(20) and 5(21) - Operational Debt - Operational Creditor - A debt which arises out of advance payment made to a corporate debtor for supply of goods or services would be considered as an operational debt - The phrase "in respect of" in Section 5(21) has to be interpreted in a broad and purposive manner in order to include all those who provide or receive operational services from the corporate debtor, which ultimately lead to an operational debt. (Para 43, 45) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Limitation Act would apply to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Limitation does not commence when the debt becomes due but only when a default occurs. As noted earlier in the judgment, default is defined under Section 3(12) of the IBC as the non -payment of the debt by the corporate debtor when it has become due. (Para 59) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 13, 15 and 31 - The claim in respect of the demand was not lodged after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC - On the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT, all claims stood frozen - No claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 207

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Court allowed withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a builder in an application filed by three homebuyers in view of a settlement plan agreed upon by the majority of them. In the larger interest of the homebuyers, the Apex Court exercised power under Article 142 to permit withdrawal of the CIRP proceedings and set aside all matters pending between the parties. Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The object and purpose of 14 the IBC is not to kill the company and stop/stall the project, but to ensure that the business of the company runs as a going concern. (Para 12) Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The provisions of the Code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such. Invest Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction v. Girnar Fibres, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12A - At any stage before a COC is constituted, a party can approach NCLT/Adjudicating Authority directly and the Tribunal may in exercise of its powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, allow or disallow an application for withdrawal or settlement - In an appropriate case and where the case is being made out and the NCLT is satisfied about the settlement, may permit/allow an application for withdrawal or settlement. Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12A - Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 - This provision is held to be directory depending on fact of case. Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 and 141 - Moratorium - Liability of natural persons like a Director of the Company - The moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would apply only to the corporate debtor and that the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 of the Act would continue to be statutorily liable under the provisions of the Act. Narinder Garg v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 428

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 20 - Even if it is found that the Corporate Debtor was not a going concern during the CIRP despite best efforts by the resolution professional, it cannot be presumed that still the Corporate Debtor was a going concern during the CIRP period. It depends on the facts of each case. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 29A(h) - The word "such creditor" in Section 29A(h) has to be interpreted to mean similarly placed creditors after the application for insolvency application is admitted by the adjudicating authority - What is required to earn a disqualification under the said provision is a mere existence of a personal guarantee that stands invoked by a single creditor, notwithstanding the application being filed by any other creditor seeking initiation of insolvency resolution process. This is subject to further compliance of invocation of the said personal guarantee by any other creditor. (Para 53) Bank of Baroda v. MBL Infrastructures, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 62

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 36(4), 53(1) - Section 53(1) of the IB Code shall not be applicable to dues of the workmen/employees on account of provident fund, gratuity and pension - They are to be treated outside the liquidation process and liquidation estate assets under the IB Code. (Para 13) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 5(13), 53(1)(b), 53(1)(c) - Insolvency resolution process costs - Dues towards the wages/salaries of only those workmen/employees who actually worked during the CIRP are to be included in the CIRP costs - The wages and salaries of all other workmen / employees of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP who actually have not worked and/or performed their duties when the Corporate Debtor was a going concern, shall not be included automatically in the CIRP costs. Such dues will be governed by Section 53(1)(b) and Section 53(1) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. (Para 9-10) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Insurance Contract - Interpreting ambiguous terms in an insurance contract - first harmoniously by reading the contract in its entirety - if still vague then the term must be interpreted in favour of the insured, i.e., against the drafter of the policy. Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 432

Insurance Law - The vehicle of the complainant (the insured) which was insured with Insurance Company was robbed. The next day, an FIR was registered by him. Accused were arrested and challan filed. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the insurance claim. The same was repudiated on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft. Though District Forum and State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint - NCDRC dismissed it by allowing insurer's revision petition. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC order and upheld the State Commission order. Jaina Construction Company v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 154

Insurance Law - Theft of Vehicle - Repudiation of Claim - The Insurance Company cannot repudiate claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft, when the insured had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle. Jaina Construction Company v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 154

Interim Directions - Appeal against Punjab and Haryana HC interim directions issued against OLX - Allowed -There was no occasion for the High Court to pass these directions; and more particularly, without hearing the appellant. OLX India BV v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Interim Order - A party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him. (Para 20) Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Interim Orders - A stayed order is not wiped out from the existence, unless it is quashed - Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order. In other words, the interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings - It is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise. (Para 24) State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Interim Orders - Appeal against Allahabad HC order holding that the writ petitioner was not liable to pay interest as he was under the protection of the interim order (though the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and the notice demanding interest was issued after it) - Allowed - On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Interim Relief - The court has to consider the prima facie case made out by the applicant for interim relief, both on the question of locus standi to sue, if questioned and on the merits of the prayer for interim relief. The Court also has to consider the balance of convenience. (Para 21) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Interpretation of Statute - Difference and distinction between a charging provision in a fiscal statute and an exemption notification - The principle that in the event of ambiguity in a provision in a fiscal statute, a construction favourable to the assessee should be adopted is concerned, shall not be applicable to construction of an exemption notification, when it is clear and not ambiguous - It will be for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification. Eligibility clause in relation to exemption notification must be given effect to as per the language and not to expand its scope deviating from its language. (Para 8.4) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Interpretation of Statute - Taxation Statutes - Exemption Notifications - The exemption notification should not be liberally construed and beneficiary must fall within the ambit of the exemption and fulfill the conditions thereof. In case such conditions are not fulfilled, the issue of application of the notification does not arise at all by implication - The notification has to be read as a whole. An exception and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and given a meaning according to legislative intendment - It is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the relevant policy and the exemption notifications issued in that regard.The Statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted in light of the words employed in them and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from the statutory provisions. (Para 8.1 - 8.3) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Interpretation of Statutes - "Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat" - A liberal construction should be put up on written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect, the intention of the parties - Interpretation of a provision of law that will defeat the very intention of the legislature must be shunned in favour of an interpretation that will promote the object sought to be achieved through the legislation. (Para 13) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Interpretation of Statutes - A rule made under a statute could not override or supersede a provision of the parent statute itself. (Para 7) Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Interpretation of Statutes - Intention of Legislature - Legislative intent in the enactment of a statute is to be gathered from the express words used in the statue unless the plain words literally construed give rise to absurd results. This Court has to go by the plain words of the statute to construe the legislative. (Para 11) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of law has two essential purposes: one is to clarify to the people governed by it, the meaning of the letter of the law; the other is to shed light and give shape to the intent of the law maker. And, in this process the courts' responsibility lies in discerning the social purpose which the specific provision subserves. (Para 34) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Interpretation of Statutes - it is the duty of the court to avoid a head­-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner so as to harmonise them - when two conflicting provisions in an Act cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both - if the court has a choice between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, such an interpretation will have to be avoided - an interpretation, which will result in anomaly or absurdity, should be avoided - the statute has to be interpreted in such a manner that it preserves its workability. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Interpretation of Statutes - it is the duty of the court to avoid a head­-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner so as to harmonise them - when two conflicting provisions in an Act cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both - if the court has a choice between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, such an interpretation will have to be avoided - an interpretation, which will result in anomaly or absurdity, should be avoided - the statute has to be interpreted in such a manner that it preserves its workability. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Interpretation of Statutes - Legal Fiction - When a legal fiction is employed by the legislature, it becomes a duty of the Court to interpret it and to give it meaning. In gleaning its meaning, the Court is duty bound to ascertain the purpose of this legislative device. The Court cannot allow its mind to be boggled in the matter of carrying the legal fiction to its logical end. But this is not the same as holding that the Court will not look to the object of the Act and, in particular, the fiction in question. (Para 36) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospectivity - A statute which affect substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective and unless textually impossible a statute which merely affects procedure is presumed to be retrospective. However, a statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights or liabilities is to be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication. State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospectivity - Every statute is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. There is a presumption against retrospectivity. An express provision should ordinarily be made to make a statute retrospective. The presumption against retrospectivity may also be rebutted by necessary implication. (Para 7) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospectivity - The device of a legal fiction can also be used to introduce retrospective operation. Generally, it is considered that every statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Interpretation of Statutes - Rule of Contra proferentem - The rule of contra proferentem thus protects the insured from the vagaries of an unfavourable interpretation of an ambiguous term to which it did not agree - The rule assumes special significance in standard form insurance policies, called contract d' adhesion or boilerplate contracts, in which the insured has little to no countervailing bargaining power. Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 432

Interpretation of Statutes - Same expression appearing at different places in a statute - it is the context which must determine whether the same expression occurring at two different places must be considered differently or in the same light. (Para 49- 50) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Interpretation of Statutes - Service Law - When the rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation. (Para 13) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Interpretation of Statutes - Service Law - When the rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation. (Para 13) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Interpretation of Statutes - Subordinate Legislation - A subordinate legislation must be interpreted to effectuate the statutory purpose and objective. (Para 21.1) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation - Exemption Entry - When the exemption Entry is clear and unambiguous, no external aid for interpretation is called for, whether in the form of Budget speech or any other notification under any other enactment. (Para 11) Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling v. Aakavi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 191

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Statutes - In the taxing statute, it is the plain language of the provision that has to be preferred, where language is plain and is capable of determining defined meaning. Strict interpretation to the provision is to be accorded to each case on hand. Purposive interpretation can be given only when there is an ambiguity in the statutory provision or it alleges to absurd results. (Para 14.3) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Statutes - The exemption notification should be strictly construed and given meaning according to legislative intendment. The Statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted in the light of the words employed in them and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from the statutory provisions. (Para 14.3) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Statutes - The notification has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. An exception and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in industrial policy and the exemption notifications. (Para 14.2) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Statutes - The principle that construction favourable to the assessee should be adopted shall not be applicable to construction of an exemption notification, if it is clear and not ambiguous. Thus, it will be for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification. Eligibility clause in relation to exemption notification must be given effect to as per the language and not to expand the scope deviating from the language. (Para 14.6) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Statutes - There is a vast difference and distinction between a charging provision in a fiscal statute and an exemption notification. (Para 14.6) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Statutes - While the exemption notification should be liberally construed, beneficiary must fall within the ambit of the exemption and fulfill the conditions thereof. In case such conditions are not fulfilled, the issue of application of the notification does not arise. (Para 14.1) State of Gujarat v. ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxing Statutes - Principle of interpretation of taxing statutes – that they need to be interpreted strictly – cannot sustain when it results in an absurdity contrary to the intentions of the Parliament. (Para 33) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Interpretation of Statutes - The construct of the provision must depend on the context of the legislative intent and the purpose for which such dispensation has been envisaged. The setting in which the expression has been used in the concerned section of the Act would assume significance. (Para 16) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Interpretation of Statutes - The interpretation is to be in the manner which will subserve and promote the object and intention behind the legislation. If it is not interpreted in the manner as aforesaid it would defeat the very intention of the legislation. (Para 14.3) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Interpretation of Statutes - To examine whether a provision is directory or mandatory, one of the tests is that the court is required to ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scheme of the statute. (Para 29) Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Interpretation of Statutes - When a provision of a statute is made subject to another provision by the legislature, this evinces an intent that where the latter provision is attracted, the former would give way. (Para 43) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Interpretation of Statutes - When Statutes provide more than one judicial fora for effectuating a right or to enforce a duty-obligation, it is a feature of remedial choices offered by the State for an effective access to justice. Therefore, while interpreting statutes provisioning plurality of remedies, it is necessary for Courts to harmonise the provisions in a constructive manner. (Para 14.1-14.2) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Interpretation of Statutes - Where a statute contains both general provision as well as specific provision, the later must prevail. (Para 8) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Interpretation of Statutes - Where the definition of a word is inclusive, as presaged by the adoption of the expression 'includes', it is prima facie extensive. (Para 32) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Interpretation of Statutes - Where the same Statute uses different terms and expressions, then it is clear that Legislature is referring to distinct and different things. (Para 14.5) Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Interpretation of Statutes - While interpreting the provisions of a statute, it is necessary that the textual interpretation should be matched with the contextual one. The Act must be looked at as a whole and it must be discovered what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. (Para 61) Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Judgment & Order - Reasoning is the life blood of the judicial system. That every order must be reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness. (Para 18) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Judgments - High Court dictated operative portion of the order on 06.11.2019 but the final order was dictated only on 15.03.2020 i.e. after 4 months and it typed out and corrected on 15.04.2020 - Supreme Court observed that it has repeatedly frowned upon the aspect of the oral orders being passed. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judgments - High Court dictated operative portion of the order on 06.11.2019 but the final order was dictated only on 15.03.2020 i.e. after 4 months and it typed out and corrected on 15.04.2020 - Supreme Court observed that it has repeatedly frowned upon the aspect of the oral orders being passed. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judgments - Practice of pronouncing final order without a reasoned judgment - Serious difficulties are caused on account of the said practice - Even if such oral orders were to be pronounced, it is expected that they are either dictated in Court or at least must follow immediately thereafter to facilitate the aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher Court. (Para 2-3) Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judgments - Practice of pronouncing final order without a reasoned judgment - Serious difficulties are caused on account of the said practice - Even if such oral orders were to be pronounced, it is expected that they are either dictated in Court or at least must follow immediately thereafter to facilitate the aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher Court. (Para 2-3) Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judgments - Words and phrases and/or sentences in a judgment cannot be read in the manner of a statute, and that too out of context. (Para 47) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Judicial Service - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which refused to interfere with cancellation of appointment of appellant judicial officer who could not join before prescribed date due to nationwide lockdown imposed in view of covid-19 pandemic - Allowed - It is not a case where there is a complete dearth of any explanation by the candidate - There was considerable confusion also about what a person could do and what a person could not do during the time of the lockdown. It was an unprecedented situation which affected the nation - Impugned notification quashed and appointment restored - The appellant will not be entitled to claim seniority / backwages. Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Judicial Service - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld discharge of a judicial officer - Allowed - Charges filed against the appellant are vague in nature and that absolutely no details have been provided regarding the said allegation of passing the bail order for extraneous considerations/ ulterior motive - Even if appellant's act is considered to be negligent, it cannot be treated as "misconduct" - The appellant be reinstated with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority, but will be entitled to be paid only 50% backwages, which may be paid within a period of four months. Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Judicial Service - Delhi Higher Judicial Service - In order to obviate any further litigation and uncertainty, we permit the High Court as a one-time measure to allow those candidates who were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 to participate in the ensuing DHJS examinations. (Para 29) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Judicial Service - Delhi Higher Judicial Service - The deletion of the minimum age requirement of 35 years in 2019 may have been guided by the need to attract a larger pool of applicants to DHJS. But the reinstatement of a minimum age requirement of 35 years is a matter of policy. This conforms to the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. (Para 27) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Judicial Service - Discharge of Judicial Officer - Negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct - Relief-oriented judicial approaches cannot by themselves be grounds to cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of an officer- Every judicial officer is likely to commit mistake of some kind or the other in passing orders in the initial stage of his service, which a mature judicial officer would not do. However, if the orders are passed without there being any corrupt motive, the same should be over-looked by the High Court and proper guidance should be provided to him. (Para 69, 54) Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Judicial Service - The writ petitioner alleged that hostile transfer orders were passed as she did not act as per the demands of the supervising High Court judge. She complained that was faced with transfer from a Category 'A' city to Category 'C' city and also a Naxal affected area, in violation of the extant transfer policy of the High Court. Since the transfer would have prevented her from being with her daughter who was then appearing for the board exams, she was faced with no option but to resign. Later, she approached the Supreme Court asserting her right to be reinstated. The Supreme Court Held: Though, it may not be possible to observe that the petitioner was forced to resign, however, the circumstances would clearly reveal that they were such, that out of frustration, the petitioner was left with no other alternative. The petitioner's resignation from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior dated 15th July 2014, cannot be construed to be voluntary and as such, the order dated 17th July 2014, passed by the respondent No. 2, thereby accepting the resignation of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside; and the respondents are directed to re­instate the petitioner forthwith as an Additional District & Sessions Judge. Though the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, she would be entitled for continuity in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 15th July 2014. Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Judicial Service (Delhi) - Order dated 21st March 2002 modified - 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through LDCE of Civil Judges having 7 years qualifying service [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division)] or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by Limited Departmental competitive Examination with those candidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge(Junior Division). (Para 17) All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Jurisdiction - An ouster of jurisdiction cannot be lightly assumed unless express words are used or such a consequence follows by necessary implication. (Para 16) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - The plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the accused cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation. (Para 38) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - Date of Birth certificate be obtained after filing of the application under Section 7A of the Act cannot be relied upon. (Para 9) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - Ossification Test varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case - It cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India. (Para 15 -17) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12(3) - U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 - Birth Certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility. The family register is not a birth certificate. Therefore, it would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of Rule 12(3) of the Rules. (Para 37) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 - Juvenility Plea of applicant whose murder conviction was affirmed by Supreme Court by dismissing SLP in 2009 - Juvenile Justice Board passed an order holding that, on the date of commission of the offence, his age was 17 years 07 months and 23 days - Applicant has undergone the sentence for 17 years and 03 days - It will be unjust to send the applicant to the Juvenile Justice Board - He shall be forthwith set at liberty provided he is not required to be detained under any other order of the competent Court. Sanjay Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 369

Labour Law - An employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages- In the first instance, there is an obligation on the part of the employee to plead that he is not gainfully employed. It is only then that the burden would shift upon the employer to make an assertion and establish the same. [Para 31-33] Allahabad Bank v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405

Labour Law - Appeal against Madras HC judgment directing payment of backwages to an employee - Dismissed - Employee/writ petitioner cannot be denied the back wages for no fault of his and the principle of "no work no pay" shall not be applicable. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Labour Law - Employee is not supposed to prove the negative that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of employment- Once he asserts that he is not gainfully employed, thereafter the onus will shift to the employer positively and it would be for the employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed. (Para 6) Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Land Acquisition - Appeal against Himachal Pradesh HC judgment which disposed a writ petition challenging dispossession and seeking compensation - Allowed - In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law - State directed to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants. Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Land Acquisition - Need for written consent in matters of land acquisition proceedings - contention of 'oral' consent to be baseless. Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - A consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record - In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation. (Para 5) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Appeal against Karnataka HC judgment that enhanced the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land on the basis of a Consent award - Allowed - The consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in case of another acquisition - The High Court has not at all considered whether the lands acquired in the present case is similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of the said Consent award. Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Awarding of fair compensation to the landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose - The claimant whose land is acquired is entitled to the fair market value of his land. (Para 3.1) Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - If on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property, he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment. Gayabai Digambar Puri v. Executive Engineer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - Injurious affection to property, in any other manner, may stand on a different footing from injurious affection to earnings. (Para 78) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - The six items covered by Section 23(1), which are to be taken into consideration by the court in determining compensation, can be summarized as follows: - (i) The market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) The damage to standing crops or trees, which are on the land at the time of the Collector taking possession; (iii) The damage sustained by reason of severing such land from the unacquired land; (iv) The damage sustained by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner or the earnings, of the person interested; (v) The reasonable expenses incurred by the person interested, in changing his residence or place of business, when he is compelled to do so in consequence of the acquisition; (vi) The damage bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession. (Para 31) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - What is injuriously affected at the time of Collector's taking possession of the land, may either be the unacquired portion of the immovable property or other movable property or even the earnings of the person interested. (Para 34) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - An Award passed under Section 20 of the 1987 Act by the Lok Adalat cannot be the basis for invoking Section 28A. (Para 49) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The award which is passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be said to be an award passed under Part III. It is the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat which culminates in the award by the Lok Adalat. In fact, an award under Part III of the Act contemplates grounds or reasons and therefore, adjudication is contemplated. (Para 44) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The word 'Court' has been defined in the Act as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed a Special Judicial Officer to perform judicial functions of the court under this Act. The Court is not the same as a Lok Adalat. (Para 45) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 49 - Distinction between the scope of sub -section (1) and the scope of sub -section (2) of Section 49 discussed. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - There may be different market prices/compensation with respect to different lands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, which is on a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at a proximity to a highway may have a different market price than the land which is situated in a different location/interior of the village and which might not have a good potential for development. (Para 6) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Land Law - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Since LA Act has been incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are applicable, the provisions of 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions made under the BDA Act. (Para 23) Bangalore Development Authority v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 76

Land Laws - Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)) - The land dedicated for pious and religious purpose is not immune from its vesting with the State. (Para 196) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Karnataka) - Beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural lands - In construing the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory - Most of the tenants are villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding cases under the Act. (Para 23, 28) Nadakerappa v. Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332

Law of Precedent - Constitution Bench Judgment - Once the majority opines in a particular matter, that is the judgment of the Constitution Bench. (Para 3) Ravindra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Law of Precedents - A decision is an authority only for what it actually decides. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts, proved or assumed to be proved. The generality of the expressions found there, is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. (Para 93) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Law of Precedents - A judgment of a Court is precedent for the issue of law which is raised and decided. Words and phrases used in a judgment cannot be read in isolation, out of context. (Para 59) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Law of Precedents - Obiter Dictum - Ratio Decidendi - "Obiter dictum" as "an opinion not necessary to a judgment; an observation as to the law made by a Judge in the course of a case, but not necessary to its decision, and therefore, of no binding effect; often called as obiter dictum, 'a remark by the way'"- A decision on a point not necessary for the purpose of or which does not fall for determination in that decision becomes an obiter dictum - Only the ratio decidendi can act as the binding or authoritative precedent. Reliance placed on mere general observations or casual expressions of the Court, is not of much avail. (Para 41) Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

Law of Precedents - The ratio decidendi is a rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. - One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. (Para 94) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Law of Torts - Negligence - Meaning - Failure to exercise that care which a reasonably prudent person would usually exercise under similar circumstances would amount to negligence; it is not necessary that negligence would always be advertent one where the wrongdoer is aware of unreasonable risk being created but it may be inadvertent or passive too, arising for want of foresight or because of some omission. However, the question as to whether the liability because of negligence could be fastened on the respondent company or not cannot be determined without dealing with the other aspects related with exceptions and defence to the allegation of negligence. (Para 49-52) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Law of Torts - Negligence - The fault of "negligence" need not always be of active negligence or of gross negligence, but it may also be of inadvertent negligence or of passive negligence. (Para 63) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Legal maxim - Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex - Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself. (Para 25) Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Legal Maxims - 'Contra proferentem rule - Inapplicability of this doctrine to the eligibility conditions in a notice inviting tender - This rule cannot be applied to lay down that in case of any ambiguity in a tender document, it has to be construed in favour of a particular person who projects a particular viewpoint - if two different tenderers suggest two different interpretations, the question would always remain as to which of the two interpretations is to be accepted? Obviously, to avoid such unworkable scenarios, the principle is that the author of the tender document is the best person to interpret its documents and requirements. The only requirement of law, for such process of decision making by the tender inviting authority, is that it should not be suffering from illegality, irrationality, mala fide, perversity, or procedural impropriety. (Para 24) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Legal Maxims - Concept of dies non juridicus - A day which is regarded by the law as one on which no judicial act can be performed, or legal diligence used. [Referred to P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon] (Para 25.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Legal Maxims - Nemo dat quod non habet - No one can confer a better title than what he himself has. (Para 19) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Legal Maxims - Nemo dat quod non habet - No one can confer a better title than what he himself has. (Para 19) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Legal Maxims - Res ipsa loquitor - Res ipsa loquitor is resorted to when an accident is shown to have occurred and the cause of the accident is primarily within the knowledge of the defendant. The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering the damages, if proper inference to be drawn from the circumstances which are known is that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant. (Para 53) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Legal Maxims - Res ipsa loquitur - Negligence may be presumed from the mere fact of accident; of course, the presumption depends upon the nature of the accident and the surrounding factors. (Para 57-58) State of U.P. v. Mcdowell and Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Legal Maxims- 'Contra proferentem rule - The rule applied in the case of ambiguity in the insurance policy because the policies are made by the insurer and its ambiguity cannot be allowed to operate against the insured. (Para 24) Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - An Award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise decree. An Award passed by the Lok Adalat without anything more, is to be treated as a decree inter alia. (Para 47) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXII - An award unless it is successfully questioned in appropriate proceedings, becomes unalterable and non -violable. In the case of a compromise falling under Order XXIII Code of Civil Procedure, it becomes a duty of the Court to apply its mind to the terms of the compromise. Without anything more, the mere compromise arrived at between the parties does not have the imprimatur of the Court. It becomes a compromise decree only when the procedures in the Code are undergone. (Para 47) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Even when the Criminal Court refers the matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in order to make it executable, it will be treated as if it were a decree. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – If a Revenue Court or a Tribunal which, undoubtedly, fall under Section 2(aaa) of the 1987 Act were to refer a case to the Lok Adalat under Section 20(1) and an award is passed it may become the order of the court/tribunal. In other words, if the matter were finally concluded on a regular basis, that is, without reference to the Lok Adalat, it would be an order which would be passed. (Para 39) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – It is the province and duty of the Court in the ultimate analysis to give effect to the will of the legislature – Golden rule of interpretation of statutes along with other principles discussed. (Para 30) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat - An Award passed by the Lok Adalat under 1987 Act is the culmination of a non -adjudicatory process. The parties are persuaded even by members of the Lok Adalat to arrive at mutually agreeable compromise. The Award sets out the terms. The provisions contained in Section 21 by which the Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe the Award with enforceability. In view of the provisions of Section 21 by which it is to be treated as a decree which cannot be challenged, undoubtedly, by way of an appeal in view of the express provisions forbidding it, unless it is set aside in other appropriate proceedings, it becomes enforceable. The purport of the law giver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree. Thus, the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a decree goes no further. (Para 37) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat - The Court as defined in Section 2 (aaa) can refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Such court, as already noticed, can be civil, criminal or a revenue court. (Para 38) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat - The Lok Adalat by virtue of the express provisions is only a facilitator of settlement and compromise in regard to matters which are referred to it. It has no adjudicatory role. (Para 27) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 19 - An Award passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act is a product of compromise. Sans compromise, the Lok Adalat loses jurisdiction. The matter goes back to the Court for adjudication. Pursuant to the compromise and the terms being reduced to writing with the approval of the parties it assumes the garb of an Award which in turn is again deemed to be a decree without anything more. (Para 48) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legislation - Distinction between declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a Court of law and the repeal of a statute by the Legislature - On declaration of a statute as unconstitutional, it becomes void ab initio. Saving past transactions are within the exclusive domain of the Court - Though the consequence of repeal is also obliteration of the statute with retrospective effect on past transactions, the Legislature is empowered to introduce a saving clause in the repealing act. (Para 20) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Legislation - Repeal - There is no question of repeal of a statute which has been declared as unconstitutional by a Court. The very declaration by a Court that a statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed. The consequences of declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute have to be dealt with only by the Court. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Legislation - Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. (Para 9) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Legislation - Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. (Para 9) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Legislation - A statute which is made by a competent legislature is valid till it is declared unconstitutional by a court of law. After declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a court of law, it is non est for all purposes. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Legislative Assembly - Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution of July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behavior in the house - Resolution directing suspension of the petitioners beyond the period of the remainder of the concerned Monsoon Session held in July 2021 is non est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational - In absence of any express provision bestowing power in the Legislature to suspend its member(s) beyond the term of the ongoing Session, the inherent power of the Legislature can be invoked only to the extent necessary and for proper exercise of the functions of the House at the relevant point of time. Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

Legislative Assembly - There can be no place for disorderly conduct in the House much less "grossly disorderly". Such conduct must be dealt with sternly for ensuring orderly functioning of the House. But, that action must be constitutional, legal, rational and as per the procedure established by law. (Para 74) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

Legislative Assembly Rules (Maharashtra); Rule 53 - The word "suspension" is necessarily linked to attendance of the member in the House. Thus, the suspension may be resorted to merely for ensuring orderly conduct of the business of the House during the concerned Session. Anything in excess of that would be irrational suspension. (Para 54) Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Leg. Assembly, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

Legitimate Expectation - A facet of Article 14 of the Constitution - The doctrine of legitimate expectations can be invoked if a representation made by a public body leads an individual to believe that they would be a recipient of a substantive benefit. (Para 26) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Letters Patent (Calcutta High Court); Clause 15 - Appeal against Division Bench order of the Calcutta High Court which allowed Letters Patent appeal against a Single Judge order which directed defendants to file affidavit­ in ­opposition and postponed the hearing of the application seeking injunction - Allowed - Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of ad­ interim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a 'judgment' inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad­ interim injunction or not. As such, the order passed by the Single Judge did not contain the traits and trappings of finality - The appellate court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Single Judge to decide as to whether the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are made out in the case or not. Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Letters Patent (Calcutta High Court); Clause 15 - Whether an order impugned would be a 'judgment' within the scope of Clause 15 of Letters Patent, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case - For such an order to be construed as a 'judgment', it must have the traits and trappings of finality - It must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, which works serious injustice to the party concerned. Each and every order passed by the Court during the course of the trial, though may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a 'judgment'. If such is permitted, the floodgate of appeals would be open against the order of Single Judge. Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Licensing and Performance for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rule, 1960 - The regulation on the overall number of performers, or even the dimensions of a stage (on which a performance can take place) cannot be characterized as a restriction; they can fall within the legitimate domain of the authority of the commissioner or the government which formulates such conditions. (Para 47) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Limitation - Suo Motu Order Extending Limitation - Even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021. (Para 2) Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Limitation Act, 1961; Section 5 - Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77

Limitation Act, 1963 - Appeal against Gauhati High Court judgment which held that the Limitation Act was applicable in the State of Mizoram and that Section 5 did not apply to suits, but only to appeals and to applications except for applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code - Dismissed - The High Court rightly set-aside the impugned order of Trial Court holding that it could not have condoned the delay of 325 days in filing the Money Suit. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Limitation Act, 1963 - Limitation Act applicable in the State of Mizoram with effect from 21.01.1972. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 29(3) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - The word 'proceedings' within the meaning of Section 29(3) is to be confined to the original proceeding and not appellate proceedings. (Para 21, 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 29(3) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - The word 'proceedings' within the meaning of Section 29(3) is to be confined to the original proceeding and not appellate proceedings. (Para 21, 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 4 - If the prescribed period for any suit/appeal/application expires on day when the Court is considered 'closed', such proceedings may be instituted on the re -opening day - A day when the Court may not as such be closed in physical sense, it would be 'deemed' to be closed, if during any part of its normal working hours, it remains closed on that day for any particular proceedings or work. (Para 25.2.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - SLP Against High Court order which set aside the Trial Court order condoning delay of 465 days even after finding that delay has not been properly explained - Dismissed - Once it was found even by the trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - SLP Against High Court order which set aside the Trial Court order condoning delay of 465 days even after finding that delay has not been properly explained - Dismissed - Once it was found even by the trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - When it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone delay is required to be dismissed - he Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds - Still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. (Para 5) Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - When it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone delay is required to be dismissed - he Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds - Still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. (Para 5) Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 does not apply to suits, but only to appeals and to applications except for applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code - Limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even though the statutory provision may sometimes cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party. The Court has no choice, but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 109 - Article 109 is the special Article to apply where the alienation of the father is challenged by the son and the property is ancestral and the parties are governed by Mitakshara law - The word 'alienation' in this article includes 'gift' - In order to attract Article 109, the following conditions have to be fulfilled: 1) The parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at the instance of the son; (3) the property relates to ancestral property; and (4) the alienee has taken over possession of the property alienated by the father. (Para 8 - 9) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Media Trial - All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel. If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law. The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law. Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice. (Para 21) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Mediation - All States are mandated to set up the mediation cells - A direction is made for the e-filing system to be made operational. In Re: Inaction Of The Governments In Appointing President And Members/staff Of Districts And State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And Inadequate Infrastructure Across India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Mediation - Mediation is an important, if not at times a better method of resolution of disputes. In Re: Inaction Of The Governments In Appointing President And Members/staff Of Districts And State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And Inadequate Infrastructure Across India v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Mediation - Taking on record the comments made during the course of mediation or settlement proceedings impedes conciliation and impinges on the principle of confidentiality. (Para 3) Arjab Jena @ Arjab Kumar Jena v. Utsa Jena @ Pattnaik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 - Regulation 6.8 - Acceptance of freebies given by pharmaceutical companies is clearly an offence on part of the medical practitioner, punishable with varying consequences. (Para 18) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Medical Course - Eligibility Requirement for Taking Admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 - National Medical Commission is not bound to grant provisional registration to the student who has not completed the entire duration of the course from the Foreign Institute including the clinical training. (Para 15) National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Medical Course - Screening Test Regulations, 2002 - Granting provisional registration to complete internship to a student who has not undergone clinical training would be compromising with the health of the citizens of any country and the health infrastructure at large - The decision of the National Medical Commission not to grant provisional registration cannot be said to be arbitrary - Qualifying in the Screening Regulations is no proof of the clinical experience, if any, gained by the students. (Para 16-21) National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Medical Negligence - A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another - He/she would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field - Merely because he/she could not save the patient, that could not be considered to be a case of medical negligence. (Para 21-27) Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Medical Negligence - Appeal against NCDRC which dismissed appellant's complaint of medical negligence - Dismissed - Commission has not committed any manifest error in arriving to a conclusion that in post operative medical negligence or follow up care, there was no negligence being committed by the respondents which may be a foundation for entertaining the complaint filed by the appellants. Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Meerut Fire Tragedy (2006) - 40:60 Liability On State & Organizers To Compensate Victims - Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to nominate within two weeks a District Judge or Additional District Judge to work on a day to day basis for determining the compensation payable to the families of the victims of the fire that broke out during a consumer fair in Meerut in 2006 - Computation of compensation in accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006; Section 19 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. (Para 4) Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; Section 12B - Section 12B of MRTP Act empowers the Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice. (Para 124) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; Section 2(u) - Unfair Trade Practice - Five ingredients to constitute an offence of unfair trade practice: (1) There must be a trade practice (within the meaning of section 2(u) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act); (2) The trade practice must be employed for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or the provision of any services;(3) The trade practice should fall within the ambit of one or more of the categories enumerated in clauses (1) to (5) of Section 36A; (4) The trade practice should cause loss or injury to the consumers of goods or services; (5) The trade practice under clause (1) should involve making a "statement" orally or in writing or by visible representation. (Para 20) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Enhanced the compensation payable to over Rupees 50 Lakhs in a motor accident case where appellant has been rendered paralysed for life after he met with an accident as a 5 year old boy in 2010 - The appellant is not able to move his both legs and had complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence and bowel constipation and bed sore. Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - The determination of damages in personal injury cases is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation. (Para 12) Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Awarding compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering - Factors to be considered - Prolonged hospitalization; the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering - There cannot be straight jacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it varies from person to person who has suffered due to the accident. (Para 8) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Awarding compensation on the head of Loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the claimant and his family members - Factors - The position of the claimant post­ accident and whether, he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness which he was enjoying prior to the accident. To what extent the claimant has lost the amenities in life and the happiness will depend on the facts of each case. (Para 8.1) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Claimant is in coma even after a period of eight long years and that he will have to be permanently bedridden during his entire life - The amount of compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities and happiness of Rs.1,00,000/­ only is unreasonable and meagre - Enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/ - The pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money. However, still it will be a solace to award suitable compensation under different heads including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life - The amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/­ -. (Para 7, 8.1) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous - The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 2(30) - U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 - Section 2(h) - A financier who is in possession of the transport vehicle owing to non -payment of the loan amount is an "owner". (Para 8.3) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 56, 59 and 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Rule 174 (2) (c) made by the State Government to enable replacement of the vehicle under a Transport permit, does not impinge upon the powers of the Central Government with respect to fixation of the age of the vehicle, or fitness of the vehicle conferred upon it under Sections 56 and 59 in Chapter IV. The scrutiny under Rule 174 is only to enable the Authority to ensure that the subsisting permit is not interrupted and at the same time public interest is not compromised by deviating from the permit. The Rule will have no bearing on the power of the Central Government and as such it would not be ultra vires the provisions of the Act. (Para 13.6) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 72 - Grant of a transport permit is an important function that the statutory authority under the Act would perform. (Para 18.1) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - A scrutiny of the vehicle, stand alone, irrespective of its relation with the permit becomes an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of Section 83 - the scope of scrutiny is limited only to examining if the vehicle is of same nature as in the permit. (Para 13.2,13.3) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Rule 174(2)(c) [which enables road transport authority to reject an application for replacement if the proposed vehicle is older than the one covered under the existing permit] is valid - Rule 174 (2) (c) is neither ultra vires the Act, nor has overridden Section 83 - Kerala HC Judgment in Regional Transport Authority vs. Shaju [ILR 2017 (3) Ker. 720] set aside. (Para 1, 23, 24) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - The purpose and object of mandating replacement by a vehicle of the same nature in Section 83 is only to ensure that the scrutiny and the conditions that were undertaken and imposed at the time of the grant continue even during the subsistence of the permit Rule 174 (2) (c) is intended to ensure that the conditions under which a transport permit is granted is not diluted when the vehicle covered by the permit is sought to be replaced by a new vehicle. (Para 15) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - The vehicle which the Authority may not approve for replacement under section 83 on the ground that it is older than the vehicle covered under the permit, can be used as a transport vehicle within the State. There is no prohibition for such a usage as the said vehicle may continue to be fit and within the age limit prescribed by the Central Government. The rigour of Rule 174 (2) (c) is only in the context of a subsisting transport permit and not as a condition for transport vehicles as such. (Para 13.7) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Replacement of a vehicle during the subsistence and continuation of a transport permit is only an incident in the working of a transport permit. While addressing such an incident, the Authority cannot be oblivious of the history and background in which the permit is granted. (Para 21.2) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - The expression "same nature" is confined only to, mean "a bus by bus, a mini -bus by mini -bus and not bus by a minibus…." is not a correct way to read the provision. There is no need to restrict the meaning of an expression same nature - The phrase, of the same nature seen in the context of provisions proximate to Sections 83, relating to duration and renewals of permits (Section 81), transfer of permits (Section 82) lend clarity to the meaning of the expression. Same nature must necessarily relate to the same nature of the vehicle in the permit. The question to be asked is the nature of the vehicle under the permit. What kind of a vehicle was that? How was that connected to the permit granted? Does the new vehicle serve the same purpose as the old vehicle was serving under the permit? (Para 21.3, 13.4) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Madras High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, in respect of multiplier of 3 upto the date of superannuation and thereafter multiplier of 8 keeping in view the dependency of life for 10 years. Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 24,33,064/ - with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of "light motor vehicle", could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a "transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class" having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs.? - Certain provisions were not noticed by the court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663 - The controversy in question needs to be revisited - referred to larger bench of more than Three Judges. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v Rambha Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 270

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (U.P.) - Section 9 - The requirement under law is to first pay the tax in advance as provided under Section 9 and thereafter to use the vehicle - It is 'pay the tax and use' and not 'use and pay the tax'. (Para 9) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (U.P.) - Sections 2(g), 2(h), 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 20A - A financier of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire -purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement. (Para 12) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (U.P.) - Sections 2(g), 2(h), 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 20A - If, after the payment of tax, the vehicle is not used for a month or more, then such an owner may apply for refund under Section 12 of the Act, 1997 and has to comply with all the requirements for seeking the refund as mentioned in Section 12, and 26 on fulfilling and/or complying with all the conditions mentioned in Section 12(1), he may get the refund to the extent provided in sub -section (1) of Section 12, as even under Section 12(1), the owner / operator shall not be entitled to the full refund but shall be entitled to the refund of an amount equal to one -third of the rate of quarterly tax or one twelfth of the yearly tax, as the case may be, payable in respect of such vehicle for each thirty days of such period for which such tax has been paid. However, only in a case, which falls under sub -section (2) of Section 12 and subject to surrender of the necessary documents as mentioned in sub -section (2) of Section 12, the liability to pay the tax shall not arise, otherwise the liability to pay the tax by such owner/operator shall continue. (Para 12) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 39A - Appointment of the Additional Municipal Commissioners - State Government created post and made appointment, but for Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation - Additional Municipal Commissioner to exercise power subject to the control of the Commissioner - Respondent no. 1 was an employee of the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 39A - Appointment of the Additional Municipal Commissioners - State Government created post and made appointment, but for Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation - Additional Municipal Commissioner to exercise power subject to the control of the Commissioner - Respondent no. 1 was an employee of the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - Imposition of penalties on municipal officer and servants - the Commissioner was empowered to suspend any officer, whether appointed by the Corporation or any other competent authority - In case of 'post equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of Assistant Commissioner', in terms of Section 56(1)(a) it is required to take prior approval from the Corporation - When a Transport Manager or officers appointed under Section 45 of the MMC Act is suspended by the Commissioner they are to inform the Corporation, which is to confirm suspension within a period of six months or else the suspension would come to an end - the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation will have the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - Imposition of penalties on municipal officer and servants - the Commissioner was empowered to suspend any officer, whether appointed by the Corporation or any other competent authority - In case of 'post equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of Assistant Commissioner', in terms of Section 56(1)(a) it is required to take prior approval from the Corporation - When a Transport Manager or officers appointed under Section 45 of the MMC Act is suspended by the Commissioner they are to inform the Corporation, which is to confirm suspension within a period of six months or else the suspension would come to an end - the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation will have the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Appeal against HC judgment upholding conviction of appellant under NDPS Act - Dismissed. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Appeal against HC judgment upholding conviction of appellant under NDPS Act - Dismissed. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - The quantity of the neutral substance is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with the actual content of the weight of the offending drug while determining small and commercial quantities. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Karuna Shanker Puri, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 173

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option to be searched before a Magistrate of a competent Gazetted Officer - Accused acquitted. (Para 9) Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, and physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for testing the opium. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, and physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for testing the opium. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 67 - Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 10) State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 50 - Whether the personal search is vitiated by violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovery made otherwise also would stand vitiated ? Cannot give such an extended view. Dayalu Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 100

National Health Mission - Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme - Upheld Uttarakhand High Court judgment that under the NRHM/NHM Scheme, Ayurvedic Doctors will be entitled to parity in salary with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Singh Chauhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Natural Justice - Principles of - Quasi Judicial Authority - A quasi -judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication - An ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In all reasonable probability, such material would have influenced the decision reached by the authority - The actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. (Para 39) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Natural Justice - Principles of - Quasi Judicial Authority - The disclosure of material serves a three - fold purpose of decreasing the error in the verdict, protecting the fairness of the proceedings, and enhancing the transparency of the investigatory bodies and judicial institutions. (Para 51) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice is a part of the mandate of Article 14 itself - An exception to the principle would be a case where it is entirely futile to provide an opportunity. (Para 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice is a part of the mandate of Article 14 itself - An exception to the principle would be a case where it is entirely futile to provide an opportunity. (Para 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Natural Justice - It is well known that natural justice is the sworn enemy of unfairness - It is expected of the Courts to be cautious and afford a reasonable opportunity to parties, especially in commercial matters having a serious impact on the economy and employment of thousands of people. (Para 37) Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114

NEET - The validity of the OBC reservation in the AIQ seats in NEET-PG and NEET-UG is upheld - Operative directions issued - Counselling on the basis of NEET-PG 2021 and NEET- UG 2021 shall be conducted by giving effect to the reservation as provided by the notice dated 29 July 2021, including the 27 per cent reservation for the OBC category and 10 per cent reservation for EWS category in the AIQ seats - The criteria for the determination of the EWS notified by OM 2019 shall be used for identifying the EWS category for candidates who appeared for the NEET-PG 2021 and NEET-UG 2021 examinations. (Para 6, 7) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 17

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - Definition of 'payment in due course' - Ascertainment of whether the act of payment is in good faith and without negligence is by examination of the circumstances in which payment is made. In other words, antecedent and present circumstances should not afford a reasonable ground for believing that the person to whom payment is made is not entitled to receive payment of the amount mentioned.9 While it would not be advisable or feasible to strait -jacket the circumstances, albeit value of the instrument, other facts that would raise doubts about the reliability and identity of the person entitled to receive payment and genuineness of the instrument in the payer's mind are relevant considerations. (Para 17) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - Definition of 'payment in due course' - The requirement in Section 10 that the payment should be in both good faith and without negligence is cumulative. Thus, mere good faith is not sufficient. (Para 17) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3(22) - Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act which defines 'good faith' as an act done honestly, whether done negligently or not, is not sufficient to hold that the payment made was 'payment in due course' under the NI Act. (Para 18) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 13 - Different principles apply for discharge from liability when the negotiable instrument is payable to bearer or has been indorsed in blank, in which case payment must be made in terms of Section 10, whereas when the negotiable instrument is payable to order, the maker, acceptor or endorser would be discharged from liability when payment is made to the 'holder' of the instrument. (Para 14) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 13 - Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988 - Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) are negotiable instruments in terms of Section 13 of the NI Act - It cannot be said that the KVPs are simple bearer instruments payable to anyone who presents the same for encashment and discharge. (Para 12, 29) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 790 - The employment of the terms "specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder" and such assertion about knowledge should be "said explicitly" as stated in A.C. Narayanan (supra) cannot be understood to mean that the assertion should be in any particular manner, much less only in the manner understood by the accused in the case. All that is necessary is to demonstrate before the learned Magistrate that the complaint filed is in the name of the "payee" and if the person who is prosecuting the complaint is different from the payee, the authorisation therefor and that the contents of the complaint are within his knowledge. What can be treated as an explicit averment, cannot be put in a straitjacket but will have to be gathered from the circumstance and the manner in which it has been averred and conveyed, based on the facts of each case. The manner in which a complaint is drafted may vary from case to case and would also depend on the skills of the person drafting the same which by itself, cannot defeat a substantive right. However, what is necessary to be taken note of is as to whether the contents as available in the pleading would convey the meaning to the effect that the person who has filed the complaint, is stated to be authorized and claims to have knowledge of the same. In addition, the supporting documents which were available on the record by themselves demonstrate the fact that an authorized person, being a witness to the transaction and having knowledge of the case had instituted the complaint on behalf of the "payee" company and therefore, the requirement of Section 142 of N.I. Act was satisfied. (Para 17, 14) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Entertaining a petition under Section 482 to quash the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate would be unjustified when the issue of proper authorisation and knowledge can only be an issue for trial. (Para 17) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - When a company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant necessarily should be the Company which would be represented by an employee who is authorized. Prima­facie, in such a situation the indication in the complaint and the sworn statement (either orally or by affidavit) to the effect that the complainant (Company) is represented by an authorized person who has knowledge, would be sufficient - Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process. If at all, there is any serious dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorized or if it is to be demonstrated that the person who filed the complaint has no knowledge of the transaction and, as such that person could not have instituted and prosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial. (Para 17) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 3 - 'Banker' includes any person acting as a banker and any post office savings bank. In terms of this section, a post office savings bank is a banker under the NI Act. (Para 11) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 8 - A holder means a person (i) entitled to possession of a promissory note, bill of exchange or a cheque, and (ii) entitled to sue the maker, acceptor or indorser of the instrument for the recovery of the amount due thereon in his name - The requirements of Section 8 are two -fold, and both requirements have to be satisfied. (Para 15) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 131 and 131A - The standard of care expected from a collecting banker does not require him to subject the cheque to a minute and microscopic examination, yet disregarding circumstances about the cheque, which on the face of it gives rise to suspicion, may amount to negligence on the part of the collecting banker. Further, the question of good faith and negligence is to be judged from the standpoint of the true owner towards whom the banker owes no contractual liability but statutory duty by these provisions - Allegations of negligence against the paying banker could provide no defence for the collecting banker who has not collected the amount in good faith and without negligence. (Para 20) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 15 and 16 - 'Indorsement', 'indorsee', 'indorser' and 'indorsement in blank' and 'in full' - Indorsement for the purpose of negotiation is made by the maker or holder of the negotiable instrument when he signs on the back or face of thereof, on a slip of paper annexed thereto or on a stamp paper for the purpose of negotiation. The person signing is called the indorser. If the instrument is signed by the indorser in his name only, it is an indorsement in blank. If the indorser also specifies the person to whom payment is to be made, the indorsement is said to be 'in full', and the person so specified is called the indorsee. (Para 12) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 8 and 78 - Payment made to a person in possession of the instrument, but not entitled to receive or recover the amount due thereon in his name, is not a valid discharge. (Para 15) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - It is surprising that on the one hand, the bank managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was returned with the remark "account frozen" in respect of the same cheque. The bank account has been mentioned on the cheque and the endorsement to the effect "Account Frozen" will presuppose that an account existed". Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - It is surprising that on the one hand, the bank managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was returned with the remark "account frozen" in respect of the same cheque. The bank account has been mentioned on the cheque and the endorsement to the effect "Account Frozen" will presuppose that an account existed". Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 118(a) - Presumption - Every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 118(a) - Presumption - Every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 8 and 9 - An obligation has been imposed on the transferee of the promissory notes, to be deemed to be a 'Holder in due course', that the notes should have been acquired in good faith; after exercising reasonable care and caution about the holder's title. (Para 11.2) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - Appeal against concurrent conviction in a cheque bounce case - Partly allowed - Upheld the conviction - Directed that sentence of imprisonment of one year vacated - Accused appellant sentenced to fine of Rs.5,000/- which he will deposit within a period of one month in the Trial Court. Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - At the time, when the complainant gives his evidence, unless a case is set up in the reply notice to the statutory notice sent, that the complainant did not have the wherewithal, it cannot be expected of the complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had the financial capacity - However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity and therefore, the case of the accused is acceptable which he can do by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents, by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself, or through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant. (Para 9) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 139 - Theory of 'probable defence' - The accused is not expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof - All which the accused needs to establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable defence has been established is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case on the conspectus of evidence and circumstances that exist - It becomes the duty of the Courts to consider carefully and appreciate the totality of the evidence and then come to a conclusion whether in the given case, the accused has shown that the case of the complainant is in peril for the reason that the accused has established a probable defence. (Para 7, 9) Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275

One Rank One Pension - No constitutional infirmity in the OROP principle as defined by the communication dated 7 November 2015 - The definition of OROP is uniformly applicable to all the pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement - The cut-off date is used only for the purpose of determining the base salary for the calculation of pension- Varying pension payable to officers of the same rank retiring before and after 1 July 2014 either due to MACP or the different base salary used for the calculation of pension cannot be held arbitrary. (Para 49) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 (U.P.) - Family register does not only contain date of birth but also keeps the records of any additions in the family, though the evidentiary value needs to be examined in each case - It is a question of fact as to how much evidentiary value is to be attached to the family register, but to say that it is entirely not relevant would not be the correct enunciation of law. The register is being maintained in accordance with the rules framed under a statute. (Para 35 -36) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Partition - It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek the cancellation of the alienations- Alienees as well as the cosharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the co­sharer. It may also be open to the alienee, in the final decree proceedings, to seek the allotment of the transferred property, to the share of the transferor, so that equities are worked out in a fair manner. (Para 15) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Partition - It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek the cancellation of the alienations- Alienees as well as the cosharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the co­sharer. It may also be open to the alienee, in the final decree proceedings, to seek the allotment of the transferred property, to the share of the transferor, so that equities are worked out in a fair manner. (Para 15) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Partition - it is not the law that a co -owner cannot acquire his own independent or separate properties. (Para 29) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Partition - Ouster - The possession of a co -owner however long it may be, hardly by itself, will constitute ouster. In the case of a co -owner, it is presumed that he possesses the property on behalf of the entire body of co -owners. Even non -participation of rent and profits by itself need not amount to ouster. The proof of the ingredients of adverse possession are undoubtedly indispensable even in a plea of ouster. However, there is the additional requirement in the case of ouster that the elements of adverse possession must be shown to have been made known to the co -owner. This is apparently for the reason that the possession of a co -owner is treated as possession of other co -owners. While it may be true that it may not be necessary to actually drive out the co -owner from the property - Mere continuance in the possession of a co -owner does not suffice to set up a plea of ouster. The possession of the co -owner will also be referable to lawful title. (Para 24) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Partition - Properties not in the possession of co -sharers/coparceners being omitted cannot result in a suit for the partition of the properties which are in their possession being rejected. (Para 11) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Partition - The law looks with disfavor upon properties being partitioned partially. The principle that there cannot be a partial partition is not an absolute one. It admits of exceptions. (Para 10) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Partition Suit - In a suit for partition, the position of the plaintiff and the defendant can be interchangeable. Each party adopts the same position with the other parties - So long as the suit is pending, a defendant can ask the Court to transpose him as a plaintiff and a plaintiff can ask for being transposed as a defendant. (Para 12) Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Partition Suit - Plaintiff is not disentitled to relief in the second appeal merely on the ground that they have not challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court which denied their claims before the First Appellate Court. Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 30(5) - Sub -Section (5) of Section 30 shall not be applicable to a minor partner who was not a partner at the time of his attaining the majority and, thereafter, he shall not be liable for any past dues of the partnership firm when he was a partner being a minor. (Para 6) State of Kerala v. Laxmi Vasanth, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 30(5) - Sub -Section (5) of Section 30 shall be applicable only in a case where a minor was inducted as a partner and thereafter at the time of attaining the majority he continued as a partner in that case such a partner who has been continued is required to give six months' notice as provided under sub -Section (5) of Section 30. If such a person who has been continued as a partner at the time of attaining the majority does not give six months notice as per sub -Section (5) of Section 30, in that case, he is deemed to have been and/or he shall be continued or treated to have been continued as a partner and the consequences and the liability as per sub -Section (7) of Section 30 shall follow. (Para 6) State of Kerala v. Laxmi Vasanth, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Partnership Act, 1932 - To attract the bar of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932, the contract in question must be the one entered into by firm with the third-party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings; and that Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right. (Para 15) Shiv Developers v. Aksharay Developers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Anganwadi centres - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Section 11 - The activity of running a preschool for the children in the age group of 3 to 6 years is purely an educational activity. The job of teaching is done by AWWs and AWHs. The State Government is running pre-schools in Anganwadi centres in accordance with Section 11 of the RTE Act. (Para 30) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to Anganwadi workers (AWW) and Anganwadi helpers. (Para 31) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 2(s) - 'Wages' - Ad hoc payment made pursuant to the interim orders passed by Court does not form part of "wages" within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the purpose of calculating gratuity. (Para 17-22) Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 3(1)(b) - Anganwadi centres are establishments contemplated by clause (b) of sub­section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act - 'Establishments' contemplated by clause (b) can be establishments within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in a State in relation to establishments. (Para 24) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal filed by two accused concurrently convicted in a murder case by invoking Section 34 IPC - Allowed - They are entitled to the benefit of doubt on the ground that it cannot be with certainty held that they had common intention - Given the acts attributed to them, the assault by the main accused and the resultant outcome were unexpected. Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 - Point whether culpable homicide would tantamount to murder or not discussed. (Para 6) State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 - The fact that the accused gave several blows/multiple blows on the vital part of the body – head which resulted into grievous injuries and he used "Phakadiyat" with such a force which resulted in Skull fracture and a frontal wound on left side and wounds with 34 stitches on the left side of the skull extended from mid of the left side of the skull along with coronal sutures of 16 cm, we are of the opinion that the case would fall under Clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC. (Para 7) State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 and 376– Rape and Murder - Death Sentence - Abhorrent nature of crime alone cannot be the decisive factor for awarding death sentence - Due consideration to be given to the equally relevant aspect pertaining to mitigating factors before arriving at a conclusion that option of any other punishment than the capital one was foreclosed. (Para 42) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction under Section 302 - Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person - The evidence of the eye -witness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts - Do not find the present one to be a case of manifest illegality so as to call for interference. Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - A co -perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act. If the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention, he would not be liable - Merely accompanying the principal accused may not establish common intention - A co -perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act - The ambit should not be extended so as to hold a person liable for remote possibilities, which were not probable and could not be envisaged. (Para 13, 19) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be pre -arranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Relevant Facts - The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co -assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are satisfied. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Section 34 IPC comes into operation against the co -perpetrators because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/offence. A person is liable for his own acts. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - The expression "common intention" should also not be confused with "intention" or "mens rea" as an essential ingredient of several offences under the IPC - For some offences, mental intention is not a requirement but knowledge is sufficient and constitutes necessary mens rea. Section 34 IPC can be invoked for the said offence also - In some cases, intention, which is ingredient of the offence, may be identical with the common intention of the co -perpetrators, but this is not mandatory. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 - Accused was convicted under Section 354 IPC - Sessions Court/ High Court dismissed his appeal/revision - Before Apex Court the accused submitted that a compromise has been entered into between him and the complainant/victim - Dismissing his SLP, the Supreme Court held: No reason to grant any credence to such compromise which is being entered into after the conviction has been confirmed by the High Court. Bimal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against relatives of husband would simply result in an abuse of the process of law - If allegations made against them are general and omnibus, they do not warrant prosecution. (Para 19 - 21) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC - the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in -laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. (Para 18) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. (Para 22) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in -laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. (Para 12) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499 - Defamation - Exceptions. (Para 18) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Penal Code, 1860; Section 324 - Arms Act, 1950; Section 27 - Once the charge against the appellants under Section 324 IPC of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm, which is a dangerous weapon stands established, they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by Section 27 of the Arms Act. (Para 22) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Penal Code, 1860; Section 148 - Merely because three persons were chargesheeted / charged / tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC when involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. (Para 12) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Section 148 - Merely because three persons were chargesheeted / charged / tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC when involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. (Para 12) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149, 141 - It is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more - Less than five persons may be charged under Section 149 if the prosecution case is that the persons before the Court and other numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and unnamed. Mahendra v. State of M.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 22

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Appeal against High Court acquitting some of the accused in a murder case - Allowed - There are no material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence. The presence of all the accused have been established and proved and the prosecution has also been successful in proving that all the accused shared the common intention - Trial Court judgment restored. State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Merely because no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 IPC when the deceased died due to head injury - Injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the vital part of the body. (Para 7.2) State of U.P. v. Jai Dutt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304-B - "Soon before" is not synonymous to "immediately before". (Para 15) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304B - Demand for money raised on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the definition of the word "dowry". (Para 12-14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - Appeal against Rajasthan High court judgment which partly allowed a criminal appeal by maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, but by reducing the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days) - Allowed - Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate- trial Court had already taken a very lenient view while imposing the sentence of only three years' rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same. State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - There is no minimum sentence under Section 307 IPC - Discretion has to be exercised judiciously and the sentence has to be imposed proportionately and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed and by considering the principles for imposing sentence. (Para 9) State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Penal Code, 1860; Section 324 - The presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows: 1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and 2. Such hurt was caused. (Para 21) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance - The word "furtherance" indicates the existence of aid or assistance in producing an effect in future. Thus, it has to be construed as an advancement or promotion - Scope of Section 34 IPC discussed. (Para 26, 28) Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Appeal against concurrent conviction of appellant by invoking Section 34 IPC - Allowed - The prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of Section 34 of IPC in this case - non­ examination of two crucial eye witnesses makes the prosecution case about the existence of a prior concert and pre­arranged plan extremely doubtful. Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Common Intention - Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not. (Para 4.2) State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - Common intention pre­supposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds, a pre­arranged plan before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The criminal act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. In a given case, the plan can be formed suddenly. (Para 9) Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287

Penal Code, 1860; Section 366 - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant accused of abducting/kidnapping a girl - Allowed - The abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will - No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Penal Code, 1860; Section 366 - Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the accused and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married the accused on her own free will without any influence being exercised by the accused. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Penal Code, 1860; Section 394 - Appeal by accused convicted under Section 394 IPC - Allowed - Prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden to such an extent that the presumption of innocence weighing in favour of the accused stands displaced. Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Penal Code, 1860; Section 397 - If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the 'offenders' had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the 'offender' who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC. (Para 17) Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Penal Code, 1860; Section 397 - The use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the 'offender' should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. (Para 17) Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - "Entrustment" - It extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of 'trust'. (Para 24) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - "Property" - The definition in the section does not restrict the property to movables or immoveable alone - There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word 'property' to moveable property only when it is used without any qualification in Section 405. (Para 25) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 406, 420 - A man, well versed in commerce, would certainly be expected to check the valuation of the property before entering into any transaction. Jayahari v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106

Penal Code, 1860; Section 494, 495 – Bigamy - Appeal against Gauhati HC order which dismissed petition seeking to quash criminal proceeding under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (bigamy) despite the Family Court's finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage - Allowed - High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the appellant had a subsisting prior marriage was a 'highly contentious matter' which has to be tried on the basis of the evidence on the record. Musst Rehana Begum v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Appeal against the order of the High Court denying permission to Appellant to leave the country - Allowed - The High Court has also not considered the allegations against the Appellant. There is not even any prima facie finding with regard to liability, if any, of the Appellant to the complainant. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes - The duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. (Para 8-9) Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 34

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable. (Para 8) Meera v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 403, 415 - Appeal against Allahabad High Court order that refused to quash FIR registered against a tenant under Section 415,403 IPC - Allowed - No criminal offence is made out, even if we accept the factual assertions made in the complaint, which was registered as the First Information Report. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 403, 415 - Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406, 420 - Appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court refusing to quash an FIR registered against appellant - Allowed - Two simultaneous proceedings, arising from the same cause of action amounted to an abuse of the process of the law which is barred - It cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406,420 - Breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating - Fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating - A mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. (Para 34) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406,420 - In order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of cheating, the complainant had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused. (Para 42, 23-36) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Pension - Grant of pensionary benefits is not a one-time payment. Grant of pensionary benefits is a recurring monthly expenditure and there is a continuous liability in future towards the pensionary benefits. (Para 10.7) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Pension - High Court directed to pay pensionary benefits to an ad -hoc employee who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service - SLP filed by the State Dismissed - The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - Externment - Externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances - As the order takes away fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, it must stand the test of reasonableness contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19. (Para 7, 12, 14) Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - In a given case, even if multiple offences have been registered which are referred in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 against an individual, that by itself is not sufficient to pass an order of externment under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56. Moreover, when clause (b) is sought to be invoked, on the basis of material on record, the competent authority must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against the person proposed to be externed by reason of apprehension on their part as regards their safety or their property. The recording of such subjective satisfaction by the competent authority is sine qua non for passing a valid order of externment under clause (b). (Para 7) Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93

Police Force - Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside punishment of dismissal awarded by appellate authority and restoring lesser punishment awarded by disciplinary authority - Partly allowed - Punishment of dismissal imposed by the Appellate Authority was not grossly disproportionate to the quantum of the offence. Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Police Force - Discipline is the essence of the organization and structure of police force. No indulgence or latitude can be granted when the case is of violence and assault on the officer who had checked and reprimanded the respondent. To condone the misconduct will have ramifications. Discipline in the police force cannot be compromised. (Para 10) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Police Force - Discipline is the essence of the organization and structure of police force. No indulgence or latitude can be granted when the case is of violence and assault on the officer who had checked and reprimanded the respondent. To condone the misconduct will have ramifications. Discipline in the police force cannot be compromised. (Para 10) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Policy Decisions - A greater free play in the joints must be accorded to decisions of economic policy where the legislature or the executive is called upon to make complex choices which cannot always conform to a straitjacket or doctrinaire solution. (Para 58) Loop Telecom and Trading Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238

Power of Attorney - The possession of an agent under a deed of Power of Attorney is also the possession of the Principal and that any unauthorized sale made by the agent will not tantamount to the Principal parting with possession. (Para 14) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Power of Attorney - The possession of an agent under a deed of Power of Attorney is also the possession of the Principal and that any unauthorized sale made by the agent will not tantamount to the Principal parting with possession. (Para 14) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Power of Attorney - The power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney - Ordinarily a Power of Attorney is to be construed strictly by the Court - Cannot amplify or magnify the clauses contained in the deed of Power of Attorney - The document should expressly authorize the agent, (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority. (Para 9, 17-18) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Power of Attorney - The power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney - Ordinarily a Power of Attorney is to be construed strictly by the Court - Cannot amplify or magnify the clauses contained in the deed of Power of Attorney - The document should expressly authorize the agent, (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority. (Para 9, 17-18) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Practice and Procedure - Anticipatory Bail Applications - When an application for anticipatory bail accompanied by an application for ad -interim relief is listed before the court, it should decide the same one way or the other, so far as the ad -interim prayer or should have taken up for consideration after giving some reasonable time to the State. Even if admitted, the court should list the same for final disposal on a specific date - Not giving any specific date is not a procedure which can be countenanced. Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Practice and Procedure - Appeal against Allahabad HC judgment which set aside conviction in a murder case - Allowed and remanded - Despite the strong observations made by this Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued. Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Practice and Procedure - Appeal against the High Court judgment which allowed writ petition answering only one issue, though four other issues were raised - Allowed - Remanded the matter to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions afresh and to adjudicate on all the other issues. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Practice and Procedure - Courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved - Adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue, would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. (Para 8.4) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Practice and Procedure - Criminal Appeals - Criminal appeals are being disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods - Practice of disposing of criminal appeals by adopting shortcuts deprecated. (Para 10) State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Practice and Procedure - Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021 - Bail - Para 17 (i) of the Draft Rules should be read as mandating the furnishing of the bail order to the prison concerned - The bail order should be furnished by the prison authorities to the accused. In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trial, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Practice and Procedure - Forum shopping - Forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by the courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law. (Para 7-10) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Practice and Procedure - Frivolous appeals being filed against unappealable orders wasting precious judicial time - The courts in India are already over­burdened with huge pendency. Such unwarranted proceedings at the behest of the parties who can afford to bear the expenses of such litigations must be discouraged. (Para 37) Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Practice and Procedure - In some High Courts, a practice is followed, that whenever a Judicial Officer having good track record tenders his/her resignation, an attempt is made by the Senior Judges of the High Court to counsel and persuade him/her to withdraw the resignation. Valuable time and money is spent on training of a Judicial Officer. Losing a good Judicial Officer without counselling him/her and without giving him/her an opportunity to introspect and re­think, will not be in the interest of either the Judicial Officer or the Judiciary - It will be in the interest of judiciary that such a practice is followed by all the High Courts. (Para 86) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Practice and Procedure - Interim order - In matters involving challenge to the constitutionality of a legislation or a rule, the Court must be wary to pass an interim order, unless the Court is convinced that the rules are prima facie arbitrary. (Para 30) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Practice and Procedure - Judgment must have clarity on exact relief granted so as to avoid difficulty in execution. Pramina Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 273

Practice and Procedure - Long standing and consistent practice followed on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court - The advocates serve a notice of the proceedings filed in the Court even before it comes up before the Court - The Court acts upon such service effected by the advocate on proof thereof being produced in the form of an affidavit of service. (Para 8) Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Practice and Procedure - Ordinarily, before passing any order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case , it would be appropriate for the higher Court to appreciate that any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court; and progression of such other cases might suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein. Moreover, such petitions, even when moved before the higher Court, need to be examined from all angles. (Para 4, 5) M. Gopalakrishnan v. Pasumpon Muthuramalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 298

Practice and Procedure - Practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged. Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Practice and Procedure - Procedure adopted by the High Court which, on the 'special mentioning' made by the Additional Public Prosecutor, directed transfer of the cases/final reports filed/pending in the Special Courts exclusively to deal with the Land Grabbing Cases to the respective jurisdictional Courts is unknown to law - The practice of passing such orders on a 'special mentioning' that too, in a disposed of matter is to be deprecated. (Para 4) Registrar General v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Practice and Procedure - Special Leave Petitions - Whenever documents/ additional documents are to be relied upon are to be produced and as far as possible, they must be filed along with the Special Leave Petition. If for any reason the same have not been filed along with the Special Leave Petition then in that case the same shall be filed well in advance before the Special Leave Petitions are heard by the Courts. By not filing the application for additional documents at the time of filing the Special Leave Petition but filing the same at the last moment and on the previous day of the posting of the Special Leave Petition and many a time late in the evening causes great inconvenience to the Court. (Para 2 -4) Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mitrajyoti Deka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231

Practice and Procedure - Special Leave Petitions - Whenever documents/ additional documents are to be relied upon are to be produced and as far as possible, they must be filed along with the Special Leave Petition. If for any reason the same have not been filed along with the Special Leave Petition then in that case the same shall be filed well in advance before the Special Leave Petitions are heard by the Courts. By not filing the application for additional documents at the time of filing the Special Leave Petition but filing the same at the last moment and on the previous day of the posting of the Special Leave Petition and many a time late in the evening causes great inconvenience to the Court. (Para 2-4) Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mitrajyoti Deka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231

Practice and Procedure - Stay of legislation - Stay of legislation can only be when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional - Sufficient reasons should be given for staying legislations. State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Practice and Procedure - The Delhi High Court made certain remarks on 'Make In India' while disposing a writ petition which it did not decide on merits - Partly allowing the appeal filed by Union of India, the Supreme Court expunged those remarks and observed: On the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made by the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against. Union of India v. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Practice and Procedure - The hierarchy of the trial court and the appellate court exists so that the trial court exercises its discretion upon the settled principles of law. An appellate court, after the findings of the trial court are recorded, has an advantage of appreciating the view taken by the trial judge and examining the correctness or otherwise thereof within the limited area available. If the appellate court itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of courts. (Para 29) Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Practice and Procedure - The High Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them. (Para 3) Union of India v. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Practice and Procedure - Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of the principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open. All that is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect. Such proceedings are not terminated and are usually remitted back. Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Precedent - Whenever the State or instrumentalities of State come up with appeals challenging small benefits granted to individual litigants, this Court applies the test of proportionality to see whether the quantum of benefits granted to the individual concerned, justifies the examination of the question of law, at the cost of that little man from a far off place. The refusal of this Court to go into the question of law in such cases, cannot be treated as tantamounting to answering the question of law in a particular manner. (Para 15) Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Precedents - A decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court cannot be questioned on certain suggestions about different interpretation of the provisions under consideration - The binding effect of a decision of the Supreme Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced, was actually decided therein. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Precedents - A decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court cannot be questioned on certain suggestions about different interpretation of the provisions under consideration - The binding effect of a decision of the Supreme Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced, was actually decided therein. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Precedents - A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. The judgment has to be construed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which the judgment has been rendered. Words, phrases and sentences in a judgment, cannot be read out of context. Nor is a judgment to be read and interpreted in the manner of a statute. It is only the law as interpreted by in an earlier judgment, which constitutes a binding precedent, and not everything that the Judges say. (Para 41) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Pre-emption - Maligned law. Such rights have been characterized as feudal, archaic and outmoded. Such right of pre-emption has been taken away and all proceedings pending before any authority have been ordered to be abated including proceedings in any other Court. Any other Court is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court. (Para 12) Punyadeo Sharma v. Kamla Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 23

Premature Release - Relevant Considerations - Prior criminal history, conduct and behaviour in jail, possible danger to society, etc. are relevant considerations - The application has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the applicant was convicted of the offence. (Para 6, 7) Sharafat Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17A - Section 17A does not have retrospective operation - It could not possibly have been the intent of the legislature that all pending investigations upto July, 2018 should be rendered infructuous. (Para 11 -12) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act - The Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. (Para 7) K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act ,1986 (Telangana) - A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" - Callous exercise of the exceptional power of preventive detention by the detaining authorities and the state - Respondents directed to take stock of challenges to detention orders pending before the Advisory Board, High Court and Supreme Court and evaluate the fairness of the detention order against lawful standards. (Para 17) Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5 - The satisfaction to be recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 5 of the PMLA is in two respects. The first is that the property in question had been acquired through proceeds of crime and involved in an offence of money laundering; and the second satisfaction specific in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act is that the owner/occupant of the property, who is in possession, is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with the same in any manner. This satisfaction is recorded for the purpose of interim arrangement during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings for securing the property in question. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The fact that the provisional attachment order is set aside by the High Court, does not per se result in nullifying the adjudication proceedings, which, can proceed and need to be taken to its logical end by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The power to provisionally attach tainted property is only of the authorised officer upon being satisfied about the existence of circumstances referred to in Section 5(1). Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5, 17 and 18 - The adjudication gets triggered after the complaint under Section 5(5) is filed before the adjudicating authority or on an application under Section 17(4) and also 18(10) of the Act. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 8 - The adjudication under Section 8 entails finally in confiscation of the tainted property or release thereof. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 - Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. V.C. Mohan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Preventive Detention - Appeal against Telangana HC judgment which dismissed challenge against a preventive detention order - Allowed - The case at hand is a clear example of non-application of mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority - Detention order quashed. Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Preventive Detention - The personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding. The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian. (Para 15) Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Prison Act, 2000 (Delhi); Section 2(h) - Delhi Prison Rules, 2018; Rule 1222-1223 - Getting remission is not a pre-requisite for obtaining furlough - Even if a prisoner is not to get any remission in his sentence and has to serve the sentence of imprisonment throughout his natural life, neither the requirements of his maintaining good conduct are whittled down nor the reformative approach and incentive for good conduct cease to exist in his relation. Thus, if he maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied as a matter of course - Depriving of even the concession of furlough and thereby taking away an incentive/motivation for good conduct would not only be counter-productive but would be an antithesis to the reformative approach otherwise running through the scheme of Rules of 2018. (Para 14-15) Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Prison Rules, 2018 (Delhi); Rule 1223 - The eligibility requirement to obtain furlough is of '3 Annual good conduct reports' and not '3 Annual good conduct remissions'. The expressions employed in Clause (I) of Rule 1223 of the Rules of 2018 are that the prisoner ought to maintain 'Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report' and further that he should continue 'to maintain good conduct'. Even these expressions cannot be read to mean that the prisoner ought to earn 'good conduct remissions' - It cannot be said that earning rewards is equivalent to earning remissions. (Para 12) Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 11 - In a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding. (Para 21) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 13A - The burden on the State authority to legally justify the confiscation order, cannot be shifted to the person facing the confiscation proceeding. (Para 19) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 11 - M.P Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012; Rule 5 - The confiscation proceeding, before the District Magistrate, is different from criminal prosecution. However, both may run simultaneously, to facilitate speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the means used for committing the offence. The District Magistrate has the power to independently adjudicate cases of violations under Sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B of the 2004 Act and pass order of confiscation in case of violation. (Para 21) Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012; Section 6 - Once, prima facie, it appears from the material before the Court that the appellant was barely thirteen years of age on the date when the alleged offence took place, both the grounds, namely that "there was a love affair" between the appellant and the second respondent as well as the alleged refusal to marry, are circumstances which will have no bearing on the grant of bail. Having regard to the age of the prosecutrix and the nature and gravity of the crime, no case for the grant of bail was established. The order of the High Court granting bail has to be interfered with since the circumstances which prevailed with the High Court are extraneous in view of the age of the prosecutrix, having regard to the provisions of Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO. X (Minor) v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 194

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner - Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. (Para 10) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - No leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law - By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. (Para 10) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3(b) - Penetrative Sexual Assault - When it has been established and proved that the accused penetrated his finger in the vagina and because of that the victim girl felt pain and irritation in urination as well as pain on her body and there was redness and swelling around the vagina found by the doctor, the case would fall under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act. (Para 8) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 23 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 155(2) - Whether Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. will apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of POCSO Act - Divergent views by judges in the Division Bench - Registry directed to place the matter before CJI for assignment before an appropriate Bench. Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - If the financial establishment is obligated to return the deposit without any increments, it shall still fall within the purview of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act, provided that the deposit does not fall within any of the exception. (Para 37) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra) - Constitutional Validity upheld - MPID Act is constitutionally valid on the grounds of legislative competence and when tested against the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. [Referred to KK Bhaskaran v. State (2011) 3 SCC 793, State of Maharashtra v. Vijay C. Puljal (2012) 10 SCC 599 and Sonal Hemant Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 10 SCC 601] (Para 54, 57) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - National Spot Exchange Ltd - Settlement Guarantee Fund- Though the SGF is termed as a "security deposit' in nomenclature, its features do not represent a security deposit. Since NSEL receives 'money' in the form of that is returned in money and services, and is not covered by the exceptions, it would fall within the expression 'deposit' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act - NSEL is a 'financial establishment' for the purposes of the Act if it is a 'person accepting deposit'. (Para 41, 31) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - Deposit - Ingredients (i) Any receipt of money or the acceptance of a valuable commodity by a financial establishment; (ii) Such acceptance ought to be subject to the money or commodity being required to be returned after a specified period or otherwise; and (iii) The return of the money or commodity may be in cash, kind or in the form of a specified service, with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form. (Para 31) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - Valuable Commodity - Unlike many other state enactments which govern the field, clause (c) of Section 2 of the MPID Act comprehends within the meaning of a deposit not only the receipt of money but of any valuable commodity as well - The phrase 'valuable commodity' cannot be restricted to only mean precious metals. Agricultural commodities which NSEL trades in will fall within the purview of the term. (Para 35, 43) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra) - Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order of freeing the attachment of assets of 63 Moons Technologies. State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Appeal against the Madras HC judgment which quashed proceedings under Domestic Violence Act on the ground of limitation - Allowed - High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence. Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12 - The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued - The dictum in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act. (Para 22) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12, 31 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - If there be any offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code will apply from the date of commission of such offence. By the time an application is preferred under Section 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Act. Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act. (Para 15) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12, 31 - Filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act cannot be equated to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. (Para 20) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Public Auction - Highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour - State or authority is not bound to accept the highest tender of bid. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held. (Para 18, 26) State of Punjab v. Mehar Din, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Public Auction - The sale pursuant to the public auction can be set aside in an eventuality where it is found on the basis of material on record that the property had been sold away at a throw away price and/or on a wholly inadequate consideration because of the fraud and/or collusion and/or after any material irregularity and/or illegality is found in conducing/holding the public auction. After the public auction is held and the highest bid is received and the property is sold in a public auction in favour of a highest bidder, such a sale cannot be set aside on the basis of some offer made by third parties subsequently and that too when they did not participate in the auction proceedings and made any offer and/or the offer is made only for the sake of making it and without any serious intent. - If the auction/sale pursuant to the public auction is set aside on the basis of frivolous and irresponsible representations made by such persons then the sanctity of a public auction would be frustrated and the rights of a genuine bidder would be adversely affected. (Para 8.2) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Public Auction - Under normal circumstances, unless there are allegations of fraud and/or collusion and/or cartel and/or any other material irregularity or illegality, the highest offer received in the public auction may be accepted as a fair value. Otherwise, there shall not be any sanctity of a public auction. (Para 8.8) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Public Employment - Appointment - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which refused to interfere with cancellation of appointment of appellant judicial officer who could not join before prescribed date due to nationwide lockdown imposed in view of covid -19 pandemic - Allowed - It is not a case where there is a complete dearth of any explanation by the candidate - There was considerable confusion also about what a person could do and what a person could not do during the time of the lockdown. It was an unprecedented situation which affected the nation - Impugned notification quashed and appointment restored - The appellant will not be entitled to claim seniority/backwages. Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Public Employment - Appointment - There is no absolute right with the candidate to insist that he should be permitted to join beyond the date - But there is no law which would support the cancellation of the candidature of the selected candidate if he seeks to join beyond a particular point of time. (Para 18, 16) Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Public Employment - Appointment - There is no absolute right with the candidate to insist that he should be permitted to join beyond the date - But there is no law which would support the cancellation of the candidature of the selected candidate if he seeks to join beyond a particular point of time. (Para 18,16) Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Public Employment - Fairness demands that public bodies, as model employers, do not pursue untenable submissions. In such cases, a concession, which is based on law, and accords to a just interpretation of the concerned law and/or rules, is sustainable. However, it is altogether another thing for a public employer, whose conduct is questioned, and who has succeeded on the merits of the case before the lower forum to voluntarily agree, in an unreasoned manner, to a compromise. The harm and deleterious effect of such conduct is to prioritize the claim of those before the court, when it is apparent that a large body of others, waiting with a similar grievance (and some of whom probably have a better or legitimate claim on merits to be appointed) are not parties to the proceedings. In such cases, a compromise is not only unjustified, it is contrary to law and public interest. (Para 20) R. Muthukumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 140

Public Employment - Recruitment - The decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out. (Para 53) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Public Order - A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" - The distinction between a disturbance to law and order and a disturbance to public order discussed. Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; Section 2(e)(2)(ii) - Even if CSIR is a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it is an authority owned or controlled by the Central Government within the meaning of Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Act. Sharada Dayadhish Shetty v. Director CSIR-NCL, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Public Trusts - Any organization which is self-governed, cannot be subjected to overarching state control. As long as its decisions are well informed, and grounded on relevant considerations, the interests of the trust are those defined by its members. Any measure of public control enacted through express stipulations in law, should not be expanded to such an extent that the right to freedom of association, under Article 19 (1) (c), is reduced to an empty husk, bereft of meaningful exercise of choice. Parsi Zoroastrian v. Sub-Divisional Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Public Trusts - The aim of public control is to ensure that the trust is administered efficiently and smoothly. The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken. Parsi Zoroastrian v. Sub-Divisional Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 ) - Constitutional validity upheld - Land for common purposes can be classified in three categories - Part of agrarian reforms and is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The Amending Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes - Only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment as the land stood vested in the panchayat - The Amending Act having been enacted after the assent of the President, is protected in terms of Article 31A of the Constitution - The entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut had to be utilised by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors. State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Ratio Decidendi - Final relief granted need not be the natural consequences of the ratio decidendi of its judgment. (Para 26) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017 - Regulation 9 - Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2017 is not ultra vires the Act or is otherwise not invalid - The delegation of powers in the single member of RERA to decide complaints filed under the Act even otherwise flows from Section 81 of the Act and such delegation can be made in absence of Regulation 9 also. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - This shall be applicable in a case where proceedings before the RERA authority are initiated by the homer buyers to protect their rights. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - In the event of conflict between RERA and SARFAESI Act the provisions contained in RERA would prevail. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - This shall be applicable in a case where proceedings before the RERA authority are initiated by the homer buyers to protect their rights. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - RERA would not apply in relation to the transaction between the borrower and the banks and financial institutions in cases where security interest has been created by mortgaging the property prior to the introduction of the Act unless and until it is found that the creation of such mortgage or such transaction is fraudulent or collusive. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Once the Act does not contemplate any further period for acquisition - The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State - The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain. (Para 7, 8) Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Appeal against judgment of Bombay High Court which gave planning Authority one year further time to acquire the land once reserved relying upon a Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors (2019) 14 SCC 411 - Allowed - The direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening the time line fixed under the Statute. Consequently, the direction to acquire the land within one year is set aside. Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Registration Act, 1908 - The registration by itself will not bring the curtains down on questions relating to title to the property. (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 17 (2) (v) - A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future would be exempt from registration under section 17 (2) (v). The test in such a case is whether the document itself creates an interest in a specific immovable property or merely creates a right to obtain another document of title. If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in the person claiming relief, the former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence. (Para 24) K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Registration Act, 1908; Section 17, 18 - The very purport of the Law of Registration is to usher in and maintain a transparent system of maintaining documents relating to property rights. It puts the world on notice about certain transactions which are compulsorily registrable Section 17 interalia. The law also makes available facility of registering documents at the option of the person (Section 18). (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 18A - Section 18A was enacted only to ensure that the copying process is hastened, as noticed from the Objects and Reasons. It is concerned only with the document which is presented for registration. (Para 32) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - 35 - There is really no need for the production of the original power of attorney, when the document is presented for registration by the person who has executed the document on the strength of the power of attorney. (Para 25) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - Section 32(b) speaks about the representative or assignee of 'such a person'. The word such a person in Section 32(b) is intended to refer to the persons covered by Section 32(a). (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - Section 32(c) must alone be read with Section 33 of the Act. Thus, when Section 32(c) of the Registration Act declares that a document, whether it is compulsorily or optionally registrable, is to be presented, inter alia, by the agent of such a person, representative or assignee, duly authorised by power of attorney, it must be executed and authenticated in the manner and hereinafter mentioned immediately in the next following section. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - Section 32(c) provides for the agent of 'such a person' which necessarily means the persons who are encompassed by Section 32(a). Besides agent of the person covered by Section 32(a), Section 32(c) also takes in the agent of the representative or assignee. Now the words representative or assignee are to be found in Section 32(b). Thus, Section 32(c) deals with agents of the persons covered by Section 32(a) and agents of the representative or assignee falling under Section 32(b). It is in respect of such an agent that there must be due authorisation by a power of attorney, which in turn, is to be executed and authenticated in the manner provided for in Section 33. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - The person, who has actually signed the document or executed the document for the purpose of Section 32(a) does not require a power of attorney to present the document. It may be open to the principal, who has entered obligations under the document, to present the document. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - The word 'agent' is to be understood as a person who is authorised to present the document for registration. Such an agent would fall under Section 32(c). Thus, in regard to persons falling in Section 34(3)(c), it would, indeed, be incumbent on the agent, inter alia, to produce the power of attorney as such. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - When a person empowers another to execute a document and the power of attorney, acting on the power, executes the document, the power of attorney holder can present the document for registration under Section 32(a). Section 32(a) of the Registration Act deals with the person executing a document and also the person claiming under the same. It also provides for persons claiming under a decree or an order being entitled to present a document. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 33 - Section 33 by its very heading provides for power of attorney recognisable for the purpose of Section 32. Section 32(a) cannot be read with Section 33 of the Act. In other words, in a situation, if a document is executed by a person, it will be open to such a person to present the document for registration through his agent. The agency can be limited to authorising the agent for presenting the document for it is such a power of attorney, which is referred to in Section 32(c). It is in regard to a power of attorney holder, who is authorised to present the document for registration to whom Section 33 would apply. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 34 - Appearances under Section 34(1) may be simultaneous or at different times. Section 34(3)(a) enjoins upon the Registering Officer to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. Section 34(3)(b) further makes it his duty to satisfy himself as to the identity of a person's appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document. It must be understood and read along with Section 32(a). Section 32(a) mandates presentation of the document for registration by some person executing or claiming under the same, inter alia. In respect of a person who presents the document, who claims to have executed the document, not only is he entitled to present the document for registration, in the inquiry under Section 34 34(3)(a) and 3(b), the duty of the Registering Officer extends only to enquire and find that such person is the person who has executed the document he has presented and further be satisfied about the identity of the person. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 34 - When it comes to Section 34(3)(c), the Registering Officer is duty-bound in respect of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent to satisfy himself of a right of such a person to so appear. Section 34(3)(c) is relatable to persons covered by Section 32(b) and 32(c) of the Act. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32, 33 and 34 - The inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not. (Para 25) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 34 - Section 34 provides for the inquiry to be done by the Registering Office before he orders registration. It declares that no document shall be registered under the Act unless the persons executing such document or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the Registering Authority before the time, allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26. This is, however, subject to Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 83 and 89. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Registration Act, 1908; Section 35 - Section 35 deals with situations in which the Registering Authority refuses the registration. If the registering Authority is satisfied about the identity of the person and that he admits the execution of the document, it may not be a 38 part of the Registrar's duty to enquire further. (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Remand - An order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. (Para 25) Nadakerappa v. Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi) - Appeal against Delhi HC judgment which allowed revision petition filed by a tenant under Section 25B(8) of the Act - Allowed - High Court proceeded to allow the revision by treating it like an appeal. Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 14(1)(e) - Eviction on Bona fide need - There has to be satisfaction on two grounds, namely, (i) the requirement being bona fide and (ii) the non-availability of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Such reasonableness along with suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant - Section 14(1)(e) creates a presumption subject to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller qua bona fide need in favour of the landlord which is obviously rebuttable with some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue- Before a presumption is drawn, the landlord is duty bound to place prima facie material supported by the adequate averments. It is only thereafter, the presumption gets attracted and the onus shifts on the tenant. (Para 12, 15) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 14(1)(e) and 25B(5) - For availing the leave to defend as envisaged under Section 25B(5), a mere assertion per se would not suffice - The satisfaction of the Rent Controller in deciding on an application seeking leave to defend is obviously subjective. The degree of probability is one of preponderance forming the subjective satisfaction of the Rent Controller. Thus, the quality of adjudication is between a mere moonshine and adequate material and evidence meant for the rejection of a normal application for eviction - The tenant is expected to put in adequate and reasonable materials in support of the facts pleaded in the form of a declaration sufficient to raise a triable issue. (Para 15-17) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 19 - Right to the dispossessed tenant for repossession if there is a non-compliance on the part of the landlord albeit after eviction, to put the premises to use for the intended purpose - Such a right is available only to a tenant who stood dispossessed on the application filed by the landlord invoking Section 14(1)(e) being allowed. (Para 16) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 25B - Legislative object - expeditious and effective remedy for a class of landlords, sans the normal procedural route. (Para 17) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 25B (8) - Revisional Jurisdiction - The High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding a roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to converting the power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature. (Para 20) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Rent Control Act, 2001 (Rajasthan) - A suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable- The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit. (Para 28) Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Rent Control Act, 2001 (Rajasthan) - Appeal against Rajasthan HC judgment which upheld decree passed by a Civil Court in a suit for possession filed by landlord- Dismissed - The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Rent Control Laws - Jurisdiction of civil courts are excluded from landlord-tenant disputes when they are specifically covered by the provisions of the State Rent Acts, which are given an overriding effect over other laws. (Para 20) Subhash Chander v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 101

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 - The object is to provide an opportunity to the convicts to be repatriated to their country so that they can be closer to their families and have better chances of rehabilitation. (Para 11) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003; Sections 12, 13 - Agreement between the Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners - The question of adaptation of the sentence can only be when the Central Government is convinced that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius is incompatible with Indian law - Incompatibility with Indian law is with reference to the enforcement of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius being contrary to fundamental laws of India. It is only in case of such an exceptional situation, that it is open the Central Government to adapt the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius to be compatible to a sentence of imprisonment provided for the similar offence. Even in cases where adaptation is being considered by the Central Government, it does not necessarily have to adapt the sentence to be exactly in the nature and duration of imprisonment provided for in the similar offence in India. In this circumstance as well, the Central Government has to make sure that the sentence is made compatible with Indian law corresponding to the nature and duration of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, as far as possible. (Para 15, 16) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003; Sections 12, 13 - Agreement between the Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners - The sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in this case is binding on India. (Para 15) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Res Judicata - Operation of the principles of res judicata in respect to the previous proceeding and judgment discussed. (Para 30) K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92

Reservation - The reservation for OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses is constitutionally valid. (Para 59) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

Reservation - The reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in unreserved categories - Even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates - Candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so. (Para 8-9) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Sandeep Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 419

Reservation - Vacating earlier interim order, the Court refused to stay the G.O. dated 07.11.2020 issued in the State of Tamil Nadu purporting to reserve 50% seats at the Super Specialty level in Government Medical Colleges to in-service doctors - Expressed a prima facie view that States are competent to provide such reservation. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 294

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - RBI has wide supervisory jurisdiction over all Banking Institutions in the country- For 'public interest' the RBI is empowered to issue any directive to any banking institution, and to prohibit alienation of an NBFC's property. (Para 8.7) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - RBI as was declared is not only vested with curative powers but also preventive powers, as was held in Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. Vs. Union of India. Hence, it is not necessary for the bank to wait for a direction to be violated, and then launch penal actions against the offenders. But the RBI can also issue directions to ensure that the relevant orders/directions are effectively followed. (Para 8.13) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Restitution - Advantages secured by a litigant, on account of orders of court, at his behest, should not be perpetuated - After the dismissal of the lis, the party concerned is relegated to the position which existed prior to the filing of the petition in the court which had granted the stay - No one can be permitted to take the benefit of the wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by the higher forum/court - No party should be prejudiced because of the order of the court. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Review Jurisdiction - Appeal against High Court order allowing review petitions - Allowed - Impugned order, allowing the review application is a cryptic and non-reasoned order - Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference - Remanded. Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306

Review Jurisdiction - While exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed. Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 4) Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 13(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 48 - Once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, the landowners cannot revert back on the plea raised that they are entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since repealed. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Om Prakash, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Lapse of acquisition. (Para 9) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - UGC to ensure that the guidelines inspection of educational institutions to ensure implementation of RPWD Act are finalized. Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Rule of Law - Nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law - Rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, the State often has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, and therefore, not tarnished the basic principle of the rule of law. (Para 14) Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Sale of Goods Act, 1930; Section 2(7) - Vehicles are goods within the meaning of Section 2(7) of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and they carry implied conditions as to their fitness. (Para 7) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Schedule Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006 (Punjab); Section 7 - De­reservation for the reserved vacancy by the appointing authority is restricted. The said de­reservation may be possibly directed by the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes if it is expedient in public interest after recording satisfaction for such de­reservation. In the said contingency the department shall pass an order assigning those reasons. Thus, in the context of 2006 Act also the de­reservation or interchangeability may be possible with a rigour to exercise such power by the department, namely; Department of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and not by appointing authority. (Para 20) Mandeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - Contention that only Special Court could take cognizance of offences under the Atrocities Act rejected. Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - SLP against Allahabad HC judgment which refused to quash order summoning the accused- Dismissed - The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - Appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of the said community alone. If any person other than a member of the reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an infringement of the rights of the genuinely deserving members of the said community - Even the applicants applying under the general categories could be adversely affected. (Para 9) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - The mere fact that the Law Giver has used the word 'voidable', cannot, in the context, detract from the gravity of the matter. The matter is not to be judged from the need for an act by the employer - In a situation where the law provides that the appointment is voidable, an act of the employer seeking to avoid the appointment is all that is required. (Para 9, 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to interfere with order terminating services of appellant after finding that she does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community to which she applied and was given appointment - Disposed of - To allow an usurper to continue being a palpable illegality and a constitutional sin, in the context, action by the competent authority terminating the services is perfectly valid - However, amounts sought to be recovered shall not be recovered from the appellant. Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - Appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of the said community alone. If any person other than a member of the reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an infringement of the rights of the genuinely deserving members of the said community - Even the applicants applying under the general categories could be adversely affected. (Para 9) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - The mere fact that the Law Giver has used the word 'voidable', cannot, in the context, detract from the gravity of the matter. The matter is not to be judged from the need for an act by the employer - In a situation where the law provides that the appointment is voidable, an act of the employer seeking to avoid the appointment is all that is required. (Para 9, 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to interfere with order terminating services of appellant after finding that she does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community to which she applied and was given appointment - Disposed of - To allow an usurper to continue being a palpable illegality and a constitutional sin, in the context, action by the competent authority terminating the services is perfectly valid - However, amounts sought to be recovered shall not be recovered from the appellant. Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - Regulation 9, 10 - Consideration of the report of the investigating authority which is submitted under Regulation 9 is one of the components guiding the Board's satisfaction on the violation of the regulations - the investigation report is not merely an internal document - The Board forms an opinion regarding the violation of Regulations after considering the investigation report prepared under Regulation 9. (Para 21, 51) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - Regulation 9 - Whether an investigation report under Regulation 9 of the PFUTP Regulations must be disclosed to the person to whom a notice to show cause is issued ? - The Board shall be duty -bound to provide copies of such parts of the report which concern the specific allegations which have been levelled in show cause notice. (Para 52) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - Where some portions of the enquiry report involve information on third parties or confidential information on the securities market, the Board cannot for that reason assert a privilege against disclosing any part of the report - Board can withhold disclosure of those sections of the report which deal with third -party personal information and strategic information bearing upon the stable and orderly functioning of the securities market. (Para 51) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - The right to disclosure is not absolute. The disclosure of information may affect other third -party interests and the stability and orderly functioning of the securities market. It should prima facie established that the disclosure of the report would affect third -party rights and the stability and orderly functioning of the securities market. The onus then shifts to the noticee to prove that the information is necessary to defend his case appropriately. (Para 51) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 - Onus is on SEBI to prove communication of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information. (Para 32) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015; Regulation 3 - Regulation 3 does not create a deeming fiction in law. Hence, it is only through producing cogent materials (letters, emails, witnesses etc.) that the said communication of UPSI could be proved and not by deeming the communication to have happened owing to the alleged proximity between the parties. (Para 40) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order passed by SEBI restricting the respondent-company from accessing the capital market for one year etc - Dismissed - The general observations of the Tribunal that there is a right of cross-examination set aside. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 - There is a right of disclosure of the relevant material. However, such a right is not absolute and is subject to other considerations as indicated under paragraph 62(v) of the judgment in T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180. In this judgment, there is no specific discussion on the issue of a right to cross-examination but the broad principles laid down therein are sufficient guidance for the Tribunal to follow. (Para 35) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15T - It is the duty of the first court of appeal to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties on both, the questions of law as well as questions of fact and then decide the issue by providing adequate reasons for its findings. (Para 24) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15Z - Scope and ambit of Statutory appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal orders to Supreme Court - The Supreme Court will exercise jurisdiction only when there is a question of law arising for consideration from the decision of the Tribunal. A question of law may arise when there is an erroneous construction of the legal provisions of the statute or the general principles of law. In such cases, the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of Section 15Z may substitute its decision on any question of law that it considers appropriate. (Para 20.1) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15Z, 15T - Question of law - Not every interpretation of the law would amount to a question of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15Z. The Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 15T, apart from acting as an appellate authority on fact, also interprets the Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder and systematically evolves a legal regime. These very principles are applied consistently for structural evolution of the sectorial laws. This freedom to evolve and interpret laws must belong to the Tribunal to subserve the Regulatory regime for clarity and consistency. These are policy and functional considerations which the Supreme Court will keep in mind while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 15Z. (Para 20.2) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11E - Provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act of 1944 - secured creditor will have priority over the dues of the Central Excise Department. (Para 43, 44, 47) Punjab National Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1) - It is open to the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can appoint an advocate commissioner to assist him/her in execution of the order passed under Section 14(1) - Advocate must be regarded as an officer of the court and, in law, subordinate to the concerned CMM/DM within their jurisdiction. (Para 44) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1) - Being an officer of the court and appointed by the CMM/DM, the acts done by the Advocate Commissioner would receive immunity under Section 14(3) of the 2002 Act — as an officer authorised by the CMM/DM - There must be a presumption that if an advocate is appointed as commissioner for execution of the orders passed by the CMM/DM under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act, that responsibility and duty will be discharged honestly and in accordance with rules of law. (Para 42) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1A) - Officer subordinate - "Functional subordination" Test applied - There is intrinsic de jure functional subordinate relationship between the CMM/DM and the advocate being an officer of the court - It does not follow that the advocate so appointed needs to be on the rolls in the Office of the CMM/DM or in public service. (Para 42) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - Taking of possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity is a ministerial act. (Para 28) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - While entrusting the act of taking possession of the secured assets consequent to the order passed under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act to any officer subordinate to him, the CMM/DM ought to exercise prudence in appointing such person who will be capable of executing the orders passed by him. Merely because he has power to appoint "any" officer subordinate to him, it would not permit him to appoint a peon or clerk, who is incapable of handling the situation. (Para 30) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13 (8) - By paying the highest bid amount / reserve price, the borrower cannot be discharged of its liability of the outstanding due to be paid to the bank - Unless and until he was ready to deposit / pay the entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with the secured creditor, the borrower cannot be discharged from the entire liability outstanding. (Para 7.1) Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - By paying the highest bid amount / reserve price, the borrower cannot be discharged of its liability of the outstanding due to be paid to the bank - Unless and until he was ready to deposit / pay the entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with the secured creditor, the borrower cannot be discharged from the entire liability outstanding. (Para 7.1) Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court overlooked the fact that there was no independent instrument of PoA and that in any case, the power of sale of a secured asset flowed out of the provisions of the Securitisation Act, 2002 and not out of an independent instrument of PoA. Section 2(zd) of the Securitisation Act, 2002 defines a 'secured creditor' to mean and include an Asset Reconstruction Company. The appellant has acquired the financial assets of OBC in terms of Section 5(1)(b) of the Securitisation Act, 2002. Therefore, under sub­section (2) of Section 5 of the Securitisation Act, 2002, the appellant shall be deemed to be the lender and all the rights of the Bank vested in them. (Para 9) Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Service Law - "Equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government." (Para 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Service Law - A non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services - Employer would not be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. Where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the Court to interfere - The cases of non-disclosure of material information and of submitting false information have been treated as being of equal gravity. Union of India v. Dillip Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Service Law - All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. (Para 24) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. (Para 12) Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Service Law - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which upheld School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Private School Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, setting aside the Enquiry Committee's order of dismissal on the sole ground that the President of the Management was not the President of the Enquiry Committee - Allowed - "Doctrine of Necessity" applied to sustain the findings of a Disciplinary Enquiry Committee against a School Principal, after noting that the President of the Committee had to be replaced due to ill health. Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Ramesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Service Law - Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside punishment of dismissal awarded by appellate authority and restoring lesser punishment awarded by disciplinary authority - Partly allowed - Punishment of dismissal imposed by the Appellate Authority was not grossly disproportionate to the quantum of the offence. Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Service Law - Appeal against High Court judgment which directed the reinstatement of an employee with back-wages - Allowed - A stale claim cannot be revived by a representation. Nagar Panchayat v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Service Law - Appeal against Orissa High Court direction to impose 'any lesser punishment' to employee terminated from service for non-disclosure of criminal cases - Allowed - In a case of the present nature where a criminal case was indeed pending against the respondent and the facts were altogether omitted from being mentioned, the employer would be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. Union of India v. Dillip Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Service Law - Appeal against the High Court judgment which upheld the cancellation of appointment of the appellant on the premise of non­disclosure of criminal case being instituted against him in the year 1997, when he was a juvenile - Allowed - the appellant was a juvenile when a criminal case was registered against him and was also a juvenile when the order of discharge was passed - This was indisputedly a special circumstance indeed which was not taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order of cancellation of his appointment - The seriatim of facts cumulatively indicate that the nature of information which was not disclosed by the appellant, in any manner, could be considered to be a suppression of material information. Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Service Law - Appeals against a Kerala High Court judgment which rejected the challenge against a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in 2018 withdrawing Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICT) - Dismissed - While we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio. (Para 32) State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393

Service Law - Compassionate Appointments restricted to Class III/IV (group C/D) Posts - SC pulls up TN Govt over Group B Appointments. M. Kendra Devi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 274

Service Law - CUSAT - Director/HOD of Cochin University a teacher who was being considered for HOD on a rational basis would not be prohibited from being considered for appointment when second rotational term becomes due if he/she during the first term makes a request of being relieved from the responsibility for academic reason. Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. v. Dr. Rajitha Kumar S., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Service Law - Deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee. Specific rights and obligations would bind the parties and govern their conduct. A transient business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation unless the respondent were to lead cogent evidence to indicate that the appellant was seconded to work overseas on deputation. Sarita Singh v. Shree Infosoft, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Service Law - Differential pay scale along with a process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are the factors to determine whether a particular post is the same as the other or a promotional one. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Differential pay scale along with a process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are the factors to determine whether a particular post is the same as the other or a promotional one. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Such a misconduct of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and playing with the life of the others is a very serious misconduct. - Merely because there was no major loss and it was a minor accident cannot be a ground to show leniency. (Para 11, 10) Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Sanya Sahayak, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 81

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Service Law - Even if the appointment was irregular, the appellant had discharged the duties and in lieu of duties, he had to be paid. The State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of any salary. Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Service Law - Executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. (Para 25) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - If a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because she has suffered stagnation. This is because, it is not a case of lack of promotional opportunities but an employee opting to forfeit offered promotion, for her own personal reasons. However, this vital aspect was not appropriately appreciated by the High Court while granting relief to the employees. (Para 16) Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Service Law - In the event of a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail - an erroneous advertisement would not create a right in favour of applicants who act on such representation. (Para 20) Employees State Insurance Co. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78

Service Law - LIC as a statutory corporation is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment process of the corporation must meet the constitutional standard of a fair and open process. Allowing for back-door entries into service is an anathema to public service. (Para 72) Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Service Law - MACP Scheme - Any revision of pay-structure or revision in other terms and conditions, of Central Government personnel cannot and do not automatically apply to the DDA; it has to consider the new or fresh scheme formulated by the Central Government, and adopt it, if necessary, after appropriate adaptation, to suit its needs. Therefore, the Central Government's MACP scheme did not apply to it automatically. (Para 29) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Service Law - MACP Scheme - That, some employees could have benefitted more under the ACP benefits, if the MACP scheme had not been introduced from an earlier date, is no ground to hold so and compel an executive agency to grant the claimed benefits. (Para 37) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Service Law - Modified Assured Career Progression - MACP Scheme envisages merely placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands and grade pay as given in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and has nothing to do with the next promotional post. (Para 4.1) Directorate of Enforcement v. Sudheesh Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Service Law - Norms applicable to the recruitment and conditions of service of officers belonging to the civil services can be stipulated in: (i) A law enacted by the competent legislature; (ii) Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution; and (iii) Executive instructions issued under Article 73 of the Constitution, in the case of civil services under the Union and Article 162, in the case of civil services under the States. (Para 28) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Pension - principles governing pensions and cut-off dates summarized - All pensioners who hold the same rank may not for all purposes form a homogenous class - The benefit of a new element in a pensionary scheme can be prospectively applied. However, the scheme cannot bifurcate a homogenous group based on a cut-off date- Same principle of computation of pensions must be applied uniformly to a homogenous class - It is not a legal mandate that pensioners who held the same rank must be given the same amount of pension. The varying benefits that may be applicable to certain personnel which would also impact the pension payable need not be equalized with the rest of the personnel. (Para 48) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Service Law - Policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the requirement of the administration. (Para 26) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Policy Decision - The Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences. (Para 10.4) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Service Law - Premature Retirement - The entire service record is to be taken into consideration which would include the ACRs of the period prior to the promotion. The order of premature retirement is required to be passed on the basis of entire service records, though the recent reports would carry their own weight. (Para 15) Central Industrial Security Force v. HC (GD) Om Prakas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 128

Service Law - Promotion - A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process - There can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules - A right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. (Para 18) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Promotion - A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process - There can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules - A right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. (Para 18) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Promotion - Seniority cum merit - A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection post. The employer's preference for a person with a clean service record can be well appreciated - Despite the difficulty in encapsulating the parameters for 'merit', a significant marker can be found in the unblemished record of the employee. (Para 25) Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Service Law - Promotion - Seniority cum merit - Appeal against High Court judgment that set aside resolution of Cantonment Board in favour of appellant in the matter of promotion to a selection post - Allowed - The unblemished service record of the appellant vis-à-vis the pending disciplinary proceedings against the respondent (eventually resulting in penalty), were taken into account - The higher pay in the same grade as per the applicable O.M., is a reliable indicator for determining inter-se seniority - All these circumstances in our opinion, weigh in favour of the appellant Rama Negi. Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Service Law - Promotion - Seniority cum merit - Parameters for determining promotion discussed - The totality of the service of the employee has to be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. (Para 19-20) Rama Negi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Service Law - Promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Regularization - A public employer such as LIC cannot be directed to carry out a mass absorption of over 11,000 workers on such flawed premises without following a recruitment process which is consistent with the principles of equality of opportunity governed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such an absorption would provide the very back-door entry, which negates the principle of equal opportunity and fairness in public employment, which has been specifically decried by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. (Para 74.iii) Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Service Law - Regularization - Appeal against High Court order which allowed writ petition filed by few employees claiming parity in date of regularization- Allowed - date of regularization and grant of pay scale is a prerogative of the employer/screening committee and no parity can be claimed in the matter of regularization in different years. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Chiggan Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296

Service Law - Regularization - State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 - The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (supra) was, (1) to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future, and (2) to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past and who have continued for a very long time. The decision of Umadevi (supra) may be applicable in a case where the appointments are irregular on the sanctioned posts in regular establishment. The same does not apply to temporary appointments made in a project/programme. (Para 8) State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 24 Mar 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Service Law - Regularization - The date from which regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view a number of factors like the nature of the work, number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made etc. The said decision will depend upon the facts of each year and no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of the earlier years. (Para 9-12) Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Chiggan Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296

Service Law - Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) - A member of the disciplined force is expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in a fancy. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392 (Para 9)

Service Law - Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) - Appeal against Gauhati High court judgment upholding the order of disciplinary authority removing the appellant from service - Dismissed If the conduct on the part of the appellant entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion in the midnight is approved, in that case, it would lead to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack. Therefore, the disciplinary authority was absolutely justified in imposing the punishment/penalty of 'removal from service' by modifying the earlier punishment of dismissal. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Service Law - Services rendered by an employee on work charge basis cannot be considered for the grant of benefit of first time bound promotion if the employee is absorbed in service on a different pay-scale. (Para 3.1, 4) State of Maharashtra v Madhukar Antu Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Service Law - Suppression of information about criminal cases - This Court has held that giving of a wrong information disentitles the candidate for appointment -An employee desirous of holding civil post has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. Truthfulness cannot be made causality by an aspirant much more for a candidate aspiring to be a teacher. (Paras 10, 11 and 12) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Bheem Singh Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Service Law - Suppression of Material Information - The candidate who intend to participate in the selection process is required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before or after his induction into service - The person who has suppressed the material information, cannot claim unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service but, at the same time, he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be exercised in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of case on hand. The yardstick which has to be applied always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the competent authority considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due diligence of various aspects at the given time and no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. (Para 15) Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Service Law - The concept of "vested right". (Para 33) Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority v. Narender Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Service Law - The employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par. (Para 10.2) State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Service Law - The employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to the financial upgradation benefits envisaged under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999. (Para 18) Scottish doctrine of "Approbate and Reprobate -" The English equivalent of the doctrine was explained in Lissenden v. CAV Bosch Ltd. wherein Lord Atkin observed at page 429, "…………In cases where the doctrine does apply the person concerned has the choice of two rights, either of which he is at liberty to adopt, but not both. Where the doctrine does apply, if the person to whom the choice belongs irrevocably and with knowledge adopts the one he cannot afterwards assert the other…………." Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Service Law - The equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to be best left to an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court's interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues. (Para 14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97

Service Law - The manner in which and the period over which revisions should take place of pensions, salaries and other financial benefits is a pure question of policy. (Para 37) Indian Ex Servicemen Movement v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289

Service Law - The prescription of a rule providing for a minimum age requirement or maximum age for entry into service is essentially a matter of policy - Determination of cut-offs lies in the realm of policy. (Para 25) High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286

Service Law - There are several authorities in which this Court has deprecated the practice on the part of the employees at the fag end of their career to dispute the records pertaining to their dates of birth that would have the effect of extension of the length of their service. The very reasoning on which an employee is not permitted to raise age­-correction plea at the fag end of his service to extend his tenure should also apply to the employer as well. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Service Law - There are several authorities in which this Court has deprecated the practice on the part of the employees at the fag end of their career to dispute the records pertaining to their dates of birth that would have the effect of extension of the length of their service. The very reasoning on which an employee is not permitted to raise age­-correction plea at the fag end of his service to extend his tenure should also apply to the employer as well. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Service Law - Transfer - Normally an order of transfer, which is an incident of service should not be interfered with, unless it is found that the same is mala fide - Mala fide is of two kinds — one 'malice in fact' and the second 'malice in law'. When an order is not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground, such an order would not be sustainable in law. (Para 61) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Service Law - Transfer Policy - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - A statutory mandate for recognizing the principle of reasonable accommodation for the disabled members of society - The formulation of a policy therefore, must take into account the mandate which Parliament imposes as an intrinsic element of the right of the disabled to live with dignity. (Para 49) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Transfer Policy - The State while formulating a policy for its own employees has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy. (Para 51) SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a "golden handshake" between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. (Para 16) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement Scheme - VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. It is the right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee's application for voluntary retirement, the employer take any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Service Law - When an employee refuses the offered promotion, difficulties in manning the higher position might arise which give rise to administrative difficulties as the concerned employee very often refuse promotion in order to continue in his/her own place of posting. (Para 17) Union of India v. Manju Arora, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Service Rules (Kerala); Rule 3 and 3A- Death Cum Retirement Gratuity - The pendency of the appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG - Rule 3A cannot be read in isolation 25 nor the latter part of it struck down as done by the High Court. Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A have to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment of the DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement. Even in the absence of these proceedings in certain eventualities the amounts can be recovered from the DCRG - Set aside Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in K. Chandran vs Local Self Government Department 2020 (5) KLT 669 (FB) (Para 37, 39) Local Self Government Department v. K. Chandran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 285

Service Tax - Whether contract is for job work or for supply of manpower - Agreement has to be read as a composite whole - In this case, though ostensibly, the agreement contains a provision for payment on the basis of the rates mentioned in Schedule II, the agreement has to be read as a composite whole. On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour. An attempt has been made to camouflage the contract as a contract for job work to avail of the exemption from the payment of service tax. The judgment of the Tribunal does not, in the circumstances, suffer from any error of reasoning. (Para 17) Adiraj Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune II, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 190

Show-Cause Notice - Fundamental purpose behind the serving of a show -­cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. (Para 8.6) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Societies Registration Act, 1860; Section 6 – Travancore ­ Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955; Section 9 - Unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit. (Para 15) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Societies Registration Act, 1860; Section 6 – Travancore ­ Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955; Section 9 - Unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit. (Para 15) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 21(5) - The scope of Section 21 (4) and (5) was examined by this Court in Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex and Another (supra). This Court referred to the Law Commission of India's recommendation that in no case the compensation should be decreed, unless it is claimed by a proper pleading. However, the Law Commission was of the opinion that it should be open to the plaintiff to seek an amendment to the plaint, at any stage of the proceedings in order to introduce a prayer for compensation, whether in lieu or in addition to specific performance. In the said case no claim for compensation for breach of agreement of sale was claimed either in addition to or in substitution of the performance of the agreement. Admittedly, there was no amendment to the plaint asking for compensation either in addition or in substitution of the performance of an agreement of sale. (Para 21) Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. v. B.P.PLC | 18 Feb 2022 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 21(5) - Whether compensation can be granted in lieu of specific performance unless claimed in the plaint - Supreme Court disallows claim for compensation as it was not specifically claimed in the plaint. Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. v. B.P.PLC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Suit for Permanent Injunction - Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law. (Para 11.1) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Suit for Permanent Injunction - Appeal against High Court judgment which dismissed second appeal to uphold Trial Court judgment which granted relief of permanent injunction while declining to grant the declaratory relief - Allowed - After having held that the plaintiff had no title and after dismissing the suit qua the cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction against defendant, the true owner. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Suit Permanent Injunction - Once the suit is held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief and when the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which was a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation. (Para 8.3) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Specific Performance Suit - A decree could not have been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance. (Para 23) Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Specific Performance Suit - A plaintiff cannot examine his attorney holder in his place, who did not have personal knowledge either of the transaction or of his readiness and willingness in a suit for specific performance. Thus, a third party who had no personal knowledge cannot give evidence about such readiness and willingness, even if he is an attorney holder of the person concerned. (Para 12) Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell - Once the execution of agreement to sell and the payment of advance substantial sale consideration is admitted by the vendor, nothing further is required to be proved by the vendee. (Para 5.2) P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16 - Readiness and Willingness - it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction - The foundation of a suit for specific performance lies in ascertaining whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands and has, through his conduct, demonstrated that he has always been willing to perform the contract. (Para 25-26) Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 74

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 20 - In deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific performance, specifically in suits relating to sale of immovable property, the courts must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree. The remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault. (Para 36) Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 74

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 22(2) - Section 22(2) of the Act is only directory - Relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed - The expression "at any stage of proceeding" is wide enough to allow the plaintiffs to seek relief of possession even at the appellate stage or in execution even if such prayer was required to be claimed. (Para 25 - 30) Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 41(b) and (d) - Injunction can be refused when sought to restrain any person from institution or prosecuting any proceedings in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought - Injunction can be refused when sought to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay) - Once a single instrument has been charged under a correct charging provision of the Statute, namely Article 20(a), the Revenue cannot split the instrument into two, because of the reduction in the stamp duty facilitated by a notification of the Government issued under Section 9(a). In other words after having accepted the deed of assignment as an instrument chargeable to duty as a conveyance under Article 20(a) and after having collected the duty payable on the same, it is not open to the respondent to subject the same instrument to duty once again under Article 45(f), merely because the appellant had the benefit of the notifications under Section 9(a). (Para 16) Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay) - Stamp duty not separately payable on Power of Attorney executed along with deed assigning debt under the SARFAESI Act. Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Subordinate Legislation - Grounds of challenge - Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. Though it may also be questioned on the ground of unreasonableness, such unreasonableness should not be in the sense of not being reasonable, but should be in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary (Para 22 -26) - The presumption is always with regard to the validity of a provision. The burden is on the party who challenges the validity of such provision (Para 30) - It is not permissible for the Court to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation ­making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. (Para 36-39) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Succession Act, 1925; Sections 299, 279, 276, 263 - Revocation of Letters of Administration - Appeal against High Court judgment which allowed application for revocation of the Letters of Administration on the ground that all the legal heirs were not impleaded in the proceedings for the grant of Letters of Administration - Dismissed - The catch is not to be found in the distinction between Section 276 and Section 278. It is to be found in Section 263 - Illustration (ii) under Section 263 deals with a case where "the grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited". Swaminathan v. Alankamony, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 276

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XXII Rule 5 - Application seeking exemption from surrendering is not required to be filed along with a special leave petitions against cancellation of bail orders - Order XXII Rule 5, applies only to cases where the petitioner is 'sentenced to a term of imprisonment' and it cannot be confused with simple orders of cancellation of bail. Mahavir Arya v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 30

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - If the law or the pension scheme in question requires an application to be accompanied by Non -availability of Record Certificate (NARC), then in absence of the same, the application, if not considered, cannot be faulted. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Mere fact that the State Government has granted pension under some freedom fighters pension scheme of the State Government would not, by itself, entitle him to claim under the scheme of the Central Government, unless he fulfills the conditions of the Central Government Scheme. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - The scheme requires the State Government to not merely forward the application but recommend such application for grant of pension. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Those persons who had participated in the freedom struggle of our country, because of which we got independence, should certainly be honoured and if they are entitled to any benefits, which includes pension, they should definitely be provided such benefit. However, such benefits should be awarded only to those persons who are entitled for the same under any Scheme of the Government. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 (Kerala) - Tax on Lotteries Act, 2004 (Karnataka) - Constitutional Validity upheld - Karnataka and Kerala State Legislatures possessed legislative competence to enact such Acts. (Para 124) State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan); Section 42 - A Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab as an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person. Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 10

Tender - Owner should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless it is found to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made. The bidder/tenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him - It is an offer to the prospective bidder/tenderer to compete and submit the tender considering the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender document. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Tender - SLP challenging High Court order dismissing the writ petition challenging a tender condition - Dismissed - The clause cannot be said to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made and the same shall be applicable to all the bidders/tenderers and there is justification also shown providing such a clause. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Torts - Civil Defamation - Succession Act, 1925 – Section 306 –Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499 - Defamation - Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act which speaks of the rights of administrators and executors of the estate of the deceased, does not bar family members and near relatives covered by Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code from seeking injunction - A right in tort may arise when any imputation concerning a deceased person harms the reputation of that person, if living or is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family members or other near relatives. (Para 19) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Torts - Defamation - Mere hurting of sensibility is not defamation, if the person said to be defamed is not lowered in character or credit in the eyes of others. (Para 22) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Torts - For an actionable tort, there has to be a wrongful act, and damage or loss or inconvenience or annoyance caused to another, by reason of the wrongful act. Annoyance or inconvenience or loss alone does not give right to a legal action. The question of what constitutes nuisance is a question which the Court has to determine. The Court has first to ascertain what is the legal duty of which there has been breach. The right to an injunction depends on the legal right and this must be determined before any relief can be granted by the Court. (Para 15) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Action for infringement - Once it is found that the defendant's trademark was identical with the plaintiff's registered trademark, the Court could not have gone into an enquiry whether the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion. In an infringement action, an injunction would be issued as soon as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the trademark of the plaintiff. (Para 54) Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Trade Marks Act, 1999 ; Section 30(1) - To get the benefit of sub section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act, both the conditions had to be fulfilled. Unless it is established that such a use is in accordance with the honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, and is not to take unfair advantage or is not detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark, one could not get benefit under Section 30(1) of the said Act. (Para 59) Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65

Transfer Guidelines/Policy of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh - Transfer Policy may not be enforceable in law, but when the Transfer Policy has been framed by the MP High Court for administration of the District Judiciary, every Judicial Officer will have a legitimate expectation that such a Policy should be given due weightage, when the cases of Judicial Officers for transfer are being considered. (Para 41) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122 - Gift - If the donor is making a gift out of his own free will and volition and is the exclusive owner of the properties, it is nobody's concern as to whom he gives the properties to - It is time that the Courts get out of this mindset, or possibly may have got out of this mindset by now on passing value judgments on relationships between parties in determining either a testamentary or non-testamentary disposition so long as the document executed is found to be validly executed. Mohinder Singh v. Mal Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122 and 123 - Gift - Voluntariness and animus necessary for the execution of a valid gift deed - One who bargains in the matter of advantage with a person who places confidence in him is bound to show that a proper and reasonable use has been made of that confidence. The burden of establishing perfect fairness, adequacy and equity is cast upon the person in whom the confidence has been reposed. Therefore, in cases of fiduciary relationships when validity of the transaction is in question it is relevant to see whether the person conferring the benefit on the other had competent and independent advice. (Para 9) Keshav v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122 and 123 - The question whether a person was in a position to dominate the will of the other and procure a certain deed by undue influence is a question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding of fact, and if arrived at fairly in accordance with the procedure prescribed, it is not liable to be reopened in second appeal. (Para 10) Keshav v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122 and 123 - When a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document-Corollary to this principle finds recognition in sub-section (3) to Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which relates to pardanashin ladies. The courts can apply this principle to old, illiterate, ailing or infirm persons who may be unable to comprehend the nature of document or contents thereof. (Para 9) Keshav v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 53A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction invoking Section 53A - Whether the plaintiffs shall be entitled to any relief under Section 53A or not has to be considered at the time of trial, but at this stage it cannot be said that the suit for the relief sought under Section 53A would not be maintainable at all and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Para 7.4) Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 53A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order VII Rule 11 - Appeal against judgment of Calcutta High Court which rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that a suit for a declaration simpliciter under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable as against the actual owner - Allowed - High Court has not considered the entire plaint averments - The plaintiffs have also prayed for the decree for a permanent injunction claiming to be in possession and the declaration and permanent injunction as such invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. When the suit is for a decree of permanent injunction and it is averred that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement and thereafter, they have developed the land and that they are in continuous possession since more than twelve years and they are also paying taxes to the Corporation, the cause of action can be said to have arisen on the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed. If that be so, the suit for decree for permanent injunction cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Bose, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 62 - Usufructuary Mortgage - Once a usufructuary mortgage is created, the mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time on the principle that once a mortgage always a mortgage. Harminder Singh v. Surjit Kaur, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - The hospitals where the procedure of transplantation is undertaken are to be registered in terms of Section 14 of the Act 1994, but for postoperative care, particularly after the patient being discharged from the hospital where the procedure of transplantation has taken place, we have not come across any provision under the Act, 1994 where such hospitals are required to be registered under the Act 1994. (Para 35) Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (now UGC Regulations, 2018) - Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 - Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions - Hope and trust that wiser counsel will now prevail and the State Government shall amend the State legislation accordingly on par with the UGC Regulations. (Para 16) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Universities Act, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh State) - Appeal against the order of Uttarakhand HC which allowed writ petition filed by a Registrar of State University seeking parity in pay with its counterparts in Central University - Allowed - State has not made a decision to accept and adopt the circular of the Central Government pertaining to the Registrars working in the Universities coming under its purview - When the classification is distinct and clear having adequate rationale with due relation to the objective, there is no reason to hold otherwise by treating a Registrar at par with the Lecturers. One is meant for administration and the other teaching. State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354

Universities Act, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh State) - Direction issued by the Central Government would at worst be mandatory to the Central Universities and the Central Government Colleges receiving funds - Any such decision would obviously be directory to State Government Colleges and Universities, being in the nature of a mere recommendation. (Para 20) State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354

University - Writ petition seeking to quash appointment of respondent as Vice Chancellor of Sardar Patel University - Allowed - The appointment of respondent found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force- Fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside the appointment of respondent as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University. Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

University Act, 1955 (Sardar Patel); Section 9 - Governor of Gujarat is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the Senate. Therefore, even as the head of the University, his advice was/is binding upon the University. (Para 13.4) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

University Vice Chancellor - Appointment and Selection - Prescribing the eligibility criteria shall not be left to the sweet will of the search committee. It may lead to arbitrariness and different search committees in absence of any statutory guidelines and/or prescription, may prescribe different eligibility criteria - While academic qualifications, administrative experience, research credentials and track record could be considered as basic eligibility requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice Chancellor would be one who is a true leader and a passionate visionary - Commitment to the quality and the objectives of the universities in particular and higher education system in general, are of course the deciding factors in selecting the right person. (Para 17.2) Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(2)(b) - Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request for extension of time to complete investigation - The only competent authority to consider such request would be "the Court" as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA - Review petition filed by the State dismissed. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sadique, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 290

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - Appeal against Rajasthan HC order denying bail to UAPA accused- under trial - Allowed - In the nature of the case against the appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail. Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 11) Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Uttar Pradesh) - Section 21(1)(a) - Ground of bona fide requirement does not strictly require the landlord to be "unemployed" to maintain an action. All that the provision contemplates is that the requirement so pleaded by the landlord must be bona fide. Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Uttar Pradesh) - Appeal against High Court which held that appellant-landlord could not maintain an application under Section 21(1)(a) since the son for whose benefit the release was sought is not unemployed - Allowed - It may be that the son of the appellant was having some income but that by itself would not disentitle him from claiming release of the premises on the ground of bona fide need. Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu) - Entry 44 of Part B of the Fourth Schedule - Hank Yarn - When the Entry in question specifically provides for exemption to the goods described as "Hank Yarn" without any ambiguity or qualification, its import cannot be restricted by describing it as being available only for the hank form of one raw material like cotton nor could it be restricted with reference to its user industry - Entry in question is clear, direct and unambiguous. (Para 11 -12) Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling v. Aakavi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 191

Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Maharashtra); Section 14B(1) - Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - If the State Election Commission or its delegatee were to reject or drop the proceedings against the concerned person or member initiated under Section 14B(1), as being devoid of merits or for any other reason, the complainant does not have remedy of appeal against such decision. Such an order becomes final and is not appealable at all. Indeed, it can be assailed before the constitutional court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 18) Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Divisional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Maharashtra); Section 14B(1) - No remedy of appeal is envisaged against an order of the State Election Commission or its delegatee – the Collector, under Section 14B(1), rejecting the complaint or to drop the proceedings for declaration of a Sarpanch/Member having incurred disqualification. That order becomes final and if passed by the Collector as the delegatee, is deemed to have been passed by the State Election Commission itself. Even the State Election Commission cannot step in thereafter in any manner much less in the guise of reconsideration or review of such order. It must follow that the Divisional Commissioner would have no jurisdiction (ab initio) to entertain assail to such an order of the Collector. (Para 21) Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Divisional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Maharashtra); Section 14B(1) and 16 - The processes under Section 14B(1) and Section 16 are completely different, though concern the matter of disqualification and vacancy arising therefrom. In case, the Collector rejects the complaint and drops the proceedings in favour of concerned Sarpanch/Member, there would be no question of accrual of any vacancy. In contradistinction, if the Collector declares the member as having incurred disqualification, the follow­up issue required to be considered by the Collector under Section 16 then is to ascertain if any vacancy had arisen because of such disqualification. The two are different processes. (Para 20) Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. Divisional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Voluntary Retirement Scheme - VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. It is the right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee's application for voluntary retirement, the employer take any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Voluntary Surrender - If the Panchayat / Municipality is taking a stand that a land was voluntarily surrendered, the burden would be on the Panchayat / Municipality to establish such voluntary surrender. (Para 12-13) Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410

Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDCs) - The use of VWDCs should, in addition to criminal cases, be allowed for other jurisdictions, including, civil jurisdictions, family courts, juvenile justice boards and Childrens' courts. Permission should be granted for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses in cases across all jurisdictions. (Para 3) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 32 and 40 - The power of the Board to investigate and determine the nature and extent of Wakf is not purely an administrative function - The power to determine under Section 32(2)(n) is the source of power but the manner of exercising that power is contemplated under Section 40 of the 1995 Act. An inquiry is required to be conducted if a Board on the basis of information collected finds that the property in question is a wakf property - There cannot be any unilateral decision without recording any reason that how and why the property is included as a wakf property. The finding of the Wakf Board is final, subject to the right of appeal under sub -section (2). Thus, any decision of the Board is required to be as a reasoned order which could be tested in appeal before the Wakf Tribunal. (Para 145) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 32 and 40 - The Wakf Board has power to determine the nature of the property as wakf under Section 32(2)(n) but after complying with the procedure prescribed as contained in Section 40. Such procedure categorically prescribes an inquiry to be conducted. The conduct of inquiry pre -supposes compliance of the principles of natural justice so as to give opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. (Para 146) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 40(3) Proviso - If a trust or society is already registered but the Board finds it to be Wakf, the statute contemplates notice to the authority. It does not mean that such trust or society is not required to be heard. The hearing to Trust or Society would also be as per the principles of natural justice. (Para 147) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Wakf Act, 1995 - The Wakf Board is a statutory authority under the 1954 Act as well as under the 1995 Act. The Official Gazette had to carry any notification at the instance of the Wakf Board. The State Government is not bound by the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette at the instance of the Wakf Board only for the reason that it has been published in the Official Gazette. The publication of a notice in an Official Gazette has a presumption of knowledge to the general public as an advertisement published in a newspaper. Therefore, mere reason that the notification was published in the State Government gazette is not binding on the State Government. (Para 132) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Waqf Act, 1995 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which set aside the notification which cancelled appointment of one Shaikh Mahemud as a Member of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs - Allowed - The findings of the High Court (i) that the term of office of a Member of the Board stipulated under Section 15 of the Waqf Act cannot be curtailed except in the case of disqualification under Section 16 or removal under Section 20; and (ii) that the cancellation 4 of appointment was arbitrary, are incapable of being upheld. State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 14 - The power to appoint would include the power of cancellation of appointment. (Para 14-15) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 14,15 - Nomination always stands on a slightly different footing than election - It may not be possible for the State Government to breach the process of election from each of the electoral colleges by curtailing the term of office of such elected members. But the same logic cannot be extended to nominated members. (Para 10-12) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 20 - The procedure prescribed under Section 20 has no application in a case where the appointment was cancelled by the notification. (Para 16) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 3(r) - Definition of waqf - there ought to be proof of dedication or user or grant to qualify as waqf - in the absence of any proof of dedication or user, a dilapidated wall or a platform cannot be conferred a status of a religious place for the purpose of offering prayers / Namaaz. [Para 17, 18] Waqf Board. Rajasthan v. Jindal Saw Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 83 - Revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso to Sub­section (9) of Section 83 is narrower than the jurisdiction that could have been conferred upon an appellate court. (Para 12) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Will - Appeal against Madras HC judgment which allowed second appeal and dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff who sought a declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of certain properties based upon the last Will and Testament by one Munisamy Chettiar, whom she claimed to be her husband - Allowed - The trial Court and the first appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the Will was true and valid and that there were no suspicious circumstances - High Court re­appreciated the very same evidence to come to a different conclusion in a second appeal - Truth and validity of the Will did not depend upon whether the plaintiff was a legally wedded wife or mistress of the testator or whether she was in an unacceptable relationship with the plaintiff. Saroja Ammal v. M. Deenadayalan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379

Will - Suspicious Circumstances - Appeal against Madras HC order which set aside a probate granted to the appellant by the District Court in respect of two last Wills and Testaments - Allowed - Each one of the circumstances (recorded by the High Court), neither individually nor collectively creates a suspicion. Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Will - Suspicious Circumstances - The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances - Cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned - In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will. (Para 21, 25) Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Will - The absolute owner of a property is entitled even to bequeath his properties in favour of strangers. (Para 20) Saroja Ammal v. M. Deenadayalan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379

Words and Phrases - "Legal malice" or "malice in law" - State is under the obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice — in fact or in law. "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of malice or spite on the part of the State. It would mean exercise of statutory power for "purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended". It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others. (Para 58) Ms. X v. Registrar General, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Words and Phrases - Difference between 'finding' and 'reasons' - Finding is a decision on an issue – Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Words and Phrases - Due process of law - Meaning discussed. (Para 12) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241

Words and Phrases - Meaning of expressions "officer", "subordinate", "any", "officer subordinate" discussed. (Para 31 - 33) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Words and Phrases - Public Interest - The term 'Public interest' has no rigid definition. It has to be understood and interpreted in reference to the context in which it is used. The concept derives its meaning from the statute where it occurs, the transaction involved, the state of society and its needs. (Para 8.7) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Words and Phrases - Question of law - Phrases such as, 'question of law', are open textual expressions, used in statutes to convey a certain meaning which the legislature would not have intended to be read in a pedantic manner. When words of the Sections allow narrow as well as wide interpretations, courts of law have developed the art and technique of finding the correct meaning by looking at the words in their context. (Para 14-16) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Words and Phrases - Scope and meaning of the word "errata" discussed - "Errata" is a term of French origin which means a thing that should be corrected. It means a mistake in printing or writing - Errata is a correction of a mistake. Hence, only arithmetical and clerical mistakes could be corrected and the scope of the notification could not be enlarged by virtue of an errata notification, (Para 153 -154) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Words and Phrases - Void and Voidable - discussed. (Para 8, 9) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; Section 4A - Interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. (Para 5) Ajaya Kumar Das v. Divisional Manager, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 102

Writ Petition seeking probe about the incident wherein on a visit to Hussainiwala, District Firozpur, State of Punjab the convoy of the Prime Minister was stuck on a flyover for around 20 minutes - Enquiry committee headed by Justice Indu Malhotra appointed. Lawyers Voice v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 43