Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index April 26 to May 2

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

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

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

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 ; 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 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 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(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 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

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

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 - 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Law - 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 - 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 - 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2022 LiveLaw (SC) April Weekly Nominal Index Part 4 (407 to 436)

1. Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434
2. Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 429
3. Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415
4. Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 427
5. Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 414
6. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Sandeep Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 419
7. Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 432 -
8. Harminder Singh v. Surjit Kaur, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 421
9. Harshit Foundation v Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 431
10. In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trial, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 433
11. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd v. U.B. Engineering Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409
12. Invest Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Girnar Fibres Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 423
13. Kaithuami v. Ralliani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 412
14. Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410
15. Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408
16. Narinder Garg v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 428
17. National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426
18. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416
19. Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417
20. Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413
21. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. R.T. Agro Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 424
22. Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407
23. Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411
24. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430
25. Talema Electronic v. ESI Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 422
26. Union of India v. Mukesh Kumar Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 420
27. Vivek Krishna v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436
28. Waqf Board. Rajasthan v. Jindal Saw Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 425
29. Widescreen Holdings v. Religare Finvest, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 435
30. Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418