SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Abortion

Woman alone has the right over her body; she's the ultimate decision maker on abortion. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

‘Forcing woman to have child born out of rape against constitutional philosophy’: Supreme Court allows survivor’s plea for abortion. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

'What is happening in Gujarat High Court? We don't appreciate HC's counterblast to our Order': Supreme Court in abortion case. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Adverse Remarks

Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of the case at hand - Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint - Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve - Such remarks, “due to the great power vested in our robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”; and may “deter officers and various personnel in carrying out their duty”- "Adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character and/ or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly”. (Para 17-18) State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721 : 2023 INSC 773

Agricultural Land

Argument that merely because the land has a few coconut trees, that will not make it an agricultural land, as in Kerela, coconut trees are found everywhere even in the urban residential properties and their presence itself will not make the land an agricultural land. Held, the land in question undoubtedly has coconut trees on it, most of them are very old but fruit bearing, and moreover in revenue records, the land is described as “theaattam” i.e., “garden”. This would mean that the land in question may be put for agricultural use. Theoretically, it is possible that a land which is recorded as “theaattam” may not be actually put for agricultural use. All the same, in the present case, the overwhelming evidence which has been duly appreciated by the three Courts below clearly prove that the land was indeed an agricultural land. Therefore, find no reason to take a different view at this stage. (Para 7) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774

Arbitration

Dissenting opinion of an arbitrator cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2023 INSC 768

Supreme Court restores 1997 arbitral award passed under 1940 Act; criticises HC & Trial Court for "appellate review". S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : 2023 INSC 751

Bail

Supreme Court surprised by Gujarat HC granting bail to murder accused based on 'settlement' with victim's son; chastises state for not challenging order. Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Supreme Court affirms bail granted to former Andaman Chief Secretary Jitendra Narain in Port Blair gang rape case. XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

The law regarding the parameters or circumstances to be considered in granting bail or refusing bail – Discussed. (Para 9) XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

'Age-old principle "where women are respected, gods live there" would recede to background' : Supreme Court cancels bail to gang-rape accused. Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : 2023 INSC 761

“How can we start selling bail like this": supreme court says onerous bail conditions must not be imposed ordinarily. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700

The grant of bail subject to onerous conditions, is ordinarily in exceptional circumstances and cannot be as a matter of course. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700

Antilia bomb scare case - Supreme Court grants bail to former Mumbai Police officer pradeep sharma. Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699 : 2023 INSC 755

Can bail condition requiring assurance from the embassy that foreign accused will not leave India be imposed? Supreme Court to examine. Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Banking Law

Disciplinary action was initiated against the bank manager for sanctioning a loan that later became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), causing substantial losses to the bank. The Bank Manager defended himself by stating that he was merely following the instructions of his superiors. However, it was found that when he recommended the loan, he failed to properly evaluate the deficiencies in the loan proposal. The Single Bench of the High Court upheld the Bank’s disciplinary action against the manager. However, the Division Bench set it aside, holding that the sanctioning of the loan was a collective decision made by the superiors, and no action had been taken against them. Held, the Division Bench should not have interfered with the judgment of the Single Judge who had upheld the Bank’s disciplinary action against the manager. Consequently, the appeal has been allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. (Para 14, 15) Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Disciplinary Action - Since no time limit is prescribed by the Bank’s Regulations to initiate disciplinary action and noticing that action was initiated soon after the irregular loan came to light, it cannot be said that only because the charge memo was issued six years after the loan was sanctioned, it would vitiate the disciplinary action. (Para 14) Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Cheque

Section 202 Cr.P.C. - Evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant in cheque cases can be taken on affidavit. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Cheque case against the firm's partner can be quashed only on strong evidence that he didn't have any concern with issuing the cheque. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2023 INSC 757

Civil Law

Execution petition can't be dismissed as inexecutable merely because property's possession is lost to third party. Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : 2023 INSC 764

Constitution of India

Test identification parade not violative of Article 20(3) of Constitution; accused cannot refuse to join TIP. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Article 370 case : won't touch special provisions for North Eastern States or other parts, Centre Tells Supreme Court. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Contract Law

Owner / employer who authored tender documents is the best person to understand & appreciate it. Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694 : 2023 INSC 760

Criminal Law

HC can act on Section 482 petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its pendency. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

'Far-fetched, vague allegations' : supreme court quashes Section 498A IPC case by wife against mother-in-law & brothers-in-law. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

Magistrate can take cognizance of a protest petition after rejecting the police final report. Zunaid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : 2023 INSC 778

Section 307 IPC - Conviction for attempt to murder can be sustained even if injuries to the complainant were very simple in nature. S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Chargesheet filed in a language which the accused does not understand is not illegal; translation can be given. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. procedure mandatory when one of the accused is a resident of a place outside magistrate's jurisdiction. Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702

'Great caution needed' : Supreme Court lists out factors to be considered while relying on dying declarations. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Supreme Court acquits convict on death row; orders immediate release. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Supreme Court sets aside order suspending conviction of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal; asks Kerala HC to decide afresh. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690

Supreme Court on evaluating criminal revision petition - Presence of party not obligatory. Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689

'Presumption of innocence a human right; life & liberty are not matters to be trifled with': Supreme Court acquits 1995 murder case accused. Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2023 INSC 749

The presumption of innocence is a human right - When confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion, lean in favour of the Defence. We have borne in mind the cardinal principle that life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with, and a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities. Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course, for certain offences, the law seeks to place a reverse onus on the accused to prove his/her innocence,but that does not impact adversely the innocent-tillproven-guilty rule for other criminal offences. (Para 18-20) Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2023 INSC 749

Criminal Trial

Test Identification Parade - In a case where an accused himself refused to participate in the TIP, it is not open to him to contend that the statement of the eye witnesses made for the first time in Court, wherein they specifically point towards him as a person who had taken part in the commission of the crime, should not be relied upon. Such a plea is available provided the prosecution is itself responsible for not holding a TIP. However, in a case where the accused himself declines to participate in a TIP, the prosecution has no option but to proceed in a normal manner like all other cases and rely upon the testimony of the witnesses, which is recorded in Court during the course of the trial of the case. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Customs

The Customs Act does not create a statutory first charge overriding charge in favour of secured creditor under S. 529A of Companies Act. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683 : 2023 INSC 746

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

As per the rules of doctrine of harmonious construction, the document has to be read as a whole and in its totality. If there is any ambiguity either patent or latent, in any of the clauses of the document, the courts should interpret such clause in such manner which is consistent with the other clauses and with the purpose and intent of the parties executing it. (Para 8) Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2023 INSC 750

Education

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of directing admission to educational institutions by way of interim orders. National Commission for Homeopathy v. Swanirbhar Homeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal Gujarat State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 726

Election

Filing of affidavit under section 83(1)(c) proviso of Representation of People Act not mandatory requirement ; substantial compliance sufficent. Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705 : 2023 INSC 762

Environmental Law

Forest Protection - Supreme Court allows Centre to notify the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as a permanent body. (Para 6) In Re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 687

Insolvency

EPFO employees must comply with the IBC timeline for filing claims; default officers must face action. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Insurance Law

Insurance company is not liable if claimant was travelling in a trailer which was not insured even if the tractor was insured. Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725

Interpretation of Statues

Doctrine of harmonious construction - ambiguous clauses in deed must be interpreted consistent with other clauses & with intent of parties. Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2023 INSC 750

Judgment

Supreme Court criticises Bombay High Court for not uploading reasoned order despite one month's passage after pronouncement. Vipul Pramodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 716

Land Dispute

The serious objection of the State against impugned Judgment is that the High Court has decided disputed questions of facts. After perusing the Judgment, the High Court recorded a finding not by deciding a fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement but from the record and admitted documents. The solitary ground raised against the impugned Judgment, therefore, deserves to be rejected. (Para 12.2) Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa v. G.P Panda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713 : 2023 INSC 753

Legal Aid

An advocate appointed to represent the accused should be given reasonable time to go through the file and get ready to assist the Court - The object of appointing an advocate to espouse the cause of the appellant who was unrepresented was to ensure that justice is done to him. Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 732 : 2023 INSC 780

Marriage

Keeping spouses together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage is cruelty to both parties : Supreme Court dissolves marriage. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Narcotic Drugs

Section 50 NDPS - Conviction cannot be sustained if accused were not informed about their right to be searched before magistrate/gazetted officer. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 : 2023 INSC 776

Practice and Procedure

It is not completely alien to the system where reasoned orders are sometimes to be delivered later on, but that does not mean that such period of later-on can be unending. There could be urgency to the parties aggrieved by the operative portion of the order which has been uploaded and if the reasons are not available / uploaded, neither the party aggrieved nor the Court considering the correctness of such order can validly challenge the same or test the same respectively. Vipul Pramodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 716

The plaint runs into 10 pages; the order of the Trial Court runs into 10 pages and the impugned order of the High Court has 6 pages. However, there are more than 60 pages of synopsis and 27 pages of the SLP. Such a bulky synopsis ought to be avoided. Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709

Manipur Violence

The Supreme Court transfers CBI cases to Assam for pre-trial steps. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Marriage

Advocates should not solemnise 'self-respect marriages' in professional capacity but can act as witnesses in private capacity. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Self-respect marriages don't require public solemnisation or declaration : Supreme Court overrules Madras HC Judgment. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Role of Advocates - Advocates or lawyers have many capacities- one being Officers of the Court. Therefore, they should not, while acting as counsel or advocates or their capacity as advocates, undertake or volunteer to solemnize marriages. That can well result in Advocates chambers or offices turning out to be matrimonial “establishment”- a consequence never intended- or perhaps never contemplated by law. However, in their capacity as friends or relatives of the intending spouses, their role as witnesses cannot be ruled out. (Para 9) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Maternity Benefit

Maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Motor Accident Claims

When the claimant was travelling in the trailer which was not insured, the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be fastened - When a tractor and trailer are involved, both the tractor as well as the trailer are required to be insured - However, invoking Article 142 powers, Insurance Company directed to pay the amount awarded by the High Court as compensation with the accrued interest and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725

It is unfortunate to seek strict evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Even in the absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in the unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 697

The Supreme Court criticised the 'lethargic attitude' of states in not filing compliance reports on directions issued by the Apex Court for implementation of the amended Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 686

NEET PG

Students who take admission in All India Quota (AIQ) seats for Post Graduate medical courses cannot vacate the seats after the second round of counselling for AIQ seats in National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET). Amrit Malik v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Power to Expunge

How the power to expunge remarks may be exercised by the High Court and Supreme Court - With great caution and circumspection, since it is an undefined power - Only to remedy a flagrant abuse of power which has been made by passing comments that are likely to cause harm or prejudice - The High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be deemed to have power to see that courts below do not unjustly and without any lawful excuse take away the character of a party or of a witness or of a counsel before it. Though in the context of Judicial officers, this Court has observed that “The role of High Court is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of power is not displayed solely in cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power should be so wielded as to have propensity to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if committed once innocently or unwittingly. “Pardon the error but not its repetition”. This principle would apply equally for all services. The power to control is not to be exercised solely by wielding a teacher's cane. (Para 19-20) State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721 : 2023 INSC 773

Property

TP Act - Transaction can't be regarded as 'mortgage by conditional sale' if condition for reconveyance is not specified in the same deed. Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743

Difference between 'mortgage by conditional sale' & 'sale with condition of retransfer': Supreme Court explains. Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743

Service Law

Supreme Court upholds disciplinary action against bank manager for lapses in loan approval; rejects defence of following superiors' instructions. Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Disciplinary Action - Power of judicial review for the Courts in disciplinary action is circumscribed. The Court can only correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and the power exercised is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. (Para 9) Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

In a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the employee. In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the employee depending upon the explanation. (Para 23) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766

Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. (Para 36) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766

If in a disciplinary proceeding, the order of penalty can be imposed on the charges proved and the punishment imposed is lawfully sustainable on those charges, it is not for the Court to consider whether those grounds alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. Unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any of those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside. (Para 39) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766

The penalty imposed in this case is “reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I” as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further, to treat the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only. Since the charge of not conducting periodical inspection and the failure to complete the formalities for creating equitable mortgage are supported by evidence, we do not think that the penalty as imposed is disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of the Court. (Para 40) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766

Appointment cannot be denied citing suppression of material facts when the employer's query was vague in nature. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

‘Suppression of Material Information’ - Bare perusal of the details of the information sought in Column No. 12 indicates that, it was regarding arrest, detention and conviction by a Court in any offence. In case the answer was ‘yes’, then full particulars of the arrest or detention or conviction and sentence were required to be furnished. In case the answer was in the negative, no other particulars were required to be furnished. In the case on hand, in reply to the information asked the respondent gave the answer as “no”. As per the contents of the information sought and as per the answer given by the respondent, he is not required to furnish information regarding pending criminal case. Therefore, supply of such information by the respondent does not fall within the expression ‘suppression of material information’. (Para 10) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

Even in case where the information regarding pending criminal case is truthfully furnished and on acquittal therein, an employer has the discretion to consider the antecedents while issuing the letter of appointment. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

Issuance of order of appointment is required to be left on the discretion of the employer and the High Court ought not to have taken away the said discretion. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

As the respondent was not involved in heinous/serious offence or any offence involving moral turpitude, and the fact that in the said criminal case he has been honourably acquitted, therefore, modifying the order of the High Court, we direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent and issue order of appointment to the post of constable in West Bengal Police Force within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. (Para 15) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754

Retired employees cannot claim benefit of subsequent Government decision to increase retirement age. (Para 17) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2023 INSC 772

The idea behind extension of retirement age of doctors was to take care of the emergency situation caused by shortage of doctors, which was resulting in affecting the studies or patient care. It was not merely to grant benefits to a particular class. (Para 19) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2023 INSC 772

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the Service Regulations. (Para 18, 19) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2023 INSC 772

Retirement age cannot be increased based on superannuation age in another similar post. The age of superannuation for employees is determined solely by statutory rules. (Para 44) Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : 2023 INSC 733

Retirement age of an employee cannot be increased on the ground of devotion to the job. (Para 48) Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : 2023 INSC 733

Once appointment is declared illegal and void ab initio, one cannot legally continue in service and claim salary. Dulu Deka v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691 : 2023 INSC 752

Succession

Hindu Succession Act - Possession of property necessary for woman to claim rights under section 14. M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774

Synopsis

'Avoid bulky synopsis' : Supreme Court expresses disappointment at 60 page synopsis filed against 6 page hc order. Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709

Wage

‘Basic wage’ under epf act, cannot be equated with ‘minimum wage’ under Minimum Wages Act. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Workman

Supreme Court asks UP Power Discom to pay over Rs 10 Lakhs as backwages to workman; Imposes cost of Rs 2 Lakhs. Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Arbitration Act, 1940; Sections 30 and 33 - Court’s jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act never extended beyond discerning whether the award discloses an “error apparent on the face of the award” or not. The ruling of the trial courts and the High Court is nothing short of intense appellate review, which is impermissible in law and beyond the courts’ jurisdiction. S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : 2023 INSC 751

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - A dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. It might provide useful clues in case there is a procedural issue which becomes critical during the challenge hearings - When a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in the majority award. The minority award (or dissenting opinion, as the learned authors point out) only embodies the views of the arbitrator disagreeing with the majority. There is no occasion for anyone- such as the party aggrieved by the majority award, or, more crucially, the party who succeeds in the majority award, to challenge the soundness, plausibility, illegality or perversity in the approach or conclusions in the dissenting opinion. That dissenting opinion would not receive the level and standard of scrutiny which the majority award (which is under challenge) is subjected to. (Para 27) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2023 INSC 768

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - Awards which contain reasons, especially when they interpret contractual terms, ought not to be interfered with, lightly - Appellate review is unavailable when exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act - Courts cannot, through process of primary contract interpretation, thus, create pathways to the kind of review which is forbidden under Section 34. (Para 22 - 23) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2023 INSC 768

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 - Executing Court cannot dismiss an execution petition against the judgment-debtor by treating the decree for possession as inexecutable, merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession of the immovable property to a third party/encroacher. It was the duty of the Executing Court to issue warrant of possession for effecting physical delivery of the suit land to the decree-holder. Further, if any resistance is offered by any stranger/ encroacher to the decree, the same has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court in accordance with Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI CPC. Unless this procedure is adopted, the Executing Court could not have closed the execution proceedings by observing that the decree is inexecutable. (Para 15) Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : 2023 INSC 764

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - High Court cannot admit regular second appeal without framing substantial questions of law. Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173, 190, 200 - On the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options - Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action - Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process - Thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 - Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report - Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report - Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be. Zunaid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : 2023 INSC 778

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - As far as complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act are concerned, for the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202(1) - In a case where one of the accused is a resident of a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, following the procedure under Section 202(1) is mandatory. (Para 4) Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207, 208 - When a copy of the report and the documents are supplied to the accused under Section 207 and/or Section 208, an opportunity is available for the accused to contend that he does not understand the language in which the final report or does not understand the language in which the final report or the statements or documents are written. But he must raise this objection at the earliest. In such a case, if the accused is appearing in person and wants to defend himself without opting for legal aid, perhaps there may be a requirement of supplying a translated version of the charge sheet and documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said accused to him. It is, however, subject to the accused satisfying the Court that he is unable to understand the language in which the charge sheet is submitted - When the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the language of the final report or charge sheet, there will not be any requirement of furnishing translations to the accused as the advocate can explain the contents of the charge sheet to the accused. If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, then the question of providing translation may arise. The reason is that the accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself. (Para 19) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 211, 215 - In a given case, even if the charge is not framed in the language of the Court, the omission to frame the charge in the language of the Court shall not be material unless it is shown that the accused was misled and it resulted in failure of justice. (Para 14.a) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228, 240 - If the accused does not understand the language in which the charge is framed, the Court will have to explain the charge to him in the language which he understands. (Para 14.b and 14.c.) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272 - The power under Section 272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by the investigating agencies or the police for the purposes of maintaining the record of the investigation. At the highest, for that purpose, the provisions regarding the law governing the Official Language of the State may apply subject to the provisions contained in such enactment. In a given case, while prescribing a form as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 173, the State Government may provide that the charge sheet must be filed in the official language of the State. Therefore, Section 272 deals with only the language of the Courts under CrPC. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272, 167, 173 - A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of CrPC or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground - With the availability of various software and Artificial Intelligence tools for making translations, providing translations will not be that difficult now. In the cases mentioned aforesaid, the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet. (Para 19) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272, 173, 465 - There is no specific provision in CrPC which requires the investigating agency/officer to file it in the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section 272 of CrPC. Even if such a requirement is read into Section 173, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated if the report is not in the language of the Court. The test of failure of justice will have to be applied in such a case as laid down in Section 465 of CrPC. (Para 18) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 279 - Where evidence is recorded in the language of the Court which is not understood by the accused or his pleader, there is an obligation on the part of the Court to explain the evidence to the accused or his lawyer, as the case may be. (Para 14.g) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 and 386 - Criminal revision petition needs to be considered on merits even in the absence of a party or their counsel. (Para 6) Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail was allowed by the High Court weighing the fact that the accused has filed a settlement arrived at with the victim’s son that too in respect of an offence under Section 302 IPC. The State ought to have approached this Court against the order of bail granted by the High Court but surprisingly, no steps were taken. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and accused was directed to surrender forthwith before the trial Court. A copy of this order forwarded to the Secretary (Home), Government of Gujarat for his perusal and appropriate action. (Para 7 – 12) Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and would be a onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and the age old principle of where women are respected Gods live there would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by process of law or accused persons are allowed to move around freely in the society or in spite of there being prima facie material being present they are allowed to move around freely in the society before guilt is proved and are likely to indulge in either threatening the prosecution witnesses or inducing them in any manner to jettison the criminal justice system, then the superior court will have to necessarily step in to undo the damage occasioned due to erroneous orders being passed by courts below. (Para 17) Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : 2023 INSC 761

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464, 465 - While deciding whether there is a failure of justice occasioned due to error, omission, or irregularity in the trial, the Court is required to consider the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. (Para 16) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Cheque complaint against partner of a firm - Powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the partner of the firm did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2023 INSC 757

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – High Court can act on Section 482 petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its pendency. (Para 11) Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 54A - Test Identification Parade - An accused is under an obligation to stand for identification parade. An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same. If the coercion is sought to be imposed in getting from accused evidence which cannot be procured save through positive volitional act on his part, the constitutional 38 guarantee as enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution will step in to protect him. However, if that evidence can be procured without any positive volitional evidentiary act on the part of the accused, Article 20(3) of the Constitution will have no application. The accused while subjecting himself to the TIP does not produce any evidence or perform any evidentiary act - The accused concerned may have a legitimate ground to resist facing the TIP saying that the witnesses had a chance to see him either at the police station or in the Court, as the case may be, however, on such ground alone he cannot refuse to face the TIP. It is always open for the accused to raise any legal ground available to him relating to the legitimacy of the TIP or the evidentiary value of the same in the course of the trial. However, the accused cannot decline or refuse to join the TIP. (Para 35) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 54A - This Section is restricted to identification of persons only. So, this Section has no application where the question of identification of articles arises. (Para 33) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Companies Act, 1956; Sections 529, 529A, 530 - Customs Act, 1962; Sections 61, 72, 142, 142A - In case of winding up of a company, the customs duty owed by the company would be treated as a preferential payment under Section 530(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956. But customs duty would not override and be given preference over the payments due to overriding preferential creditors covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, which include the secured creditors. The Customs Act, 1962 does not create a statutory first charge on the customs dues, overriding the charge created in favour of the secured creditor under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683 : 2023 INSC 746

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - Even after leave is granted and appeal is admitted, the appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist to reverse the findings, or grave injustice will be done if the decision under challenge is not interfered with. (Para 8) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides - Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage - When there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(3) - Test Identification Parade - Conduct of Test Identification Parade is not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - What is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution is procuring by compulsion of the positive volitional evidentiary acts of an accused. It is true that an accused may be said to be compelled to attend a test identification parade, but this compulsion does not involve any positive volitional evidentiary act. His mere attendance or the exhibition of his body at a test identification parade even though compelled, does not result in any evidentiary act until he is identified by some other agency. The identification of him by a witness is not his act, even though his body is exhibited for the purpose. His compelled attendance at a test identification parade is comparatively remote to the final evidence and cannot be said by itself to furnish any positive volitional evidentiary act. (Para 26) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207, 208 - Accused must know and understand the material against him in the charge sheet. That is the essence of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 19) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The whole object of preferring a Writ Petition is to engage with the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional power. Such a power is vested with the constitutional courts and discretion has to be exercised judiciously and having regard to the facts of the case and by taking into consideration the relevant facts while leaving out irrelevant considerations and not vice versa. (Para 19) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petition in tender matters - The owner or the employer of a project, who authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents - The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation. (Para 25) Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694 : 2023 INSC 760

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Union Government has absolutely no intent to affect any of the special provisions in Part XXI applicable to the North East or to any other part of India. The reference to the Constitution Bench is confined to the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 4, 5) In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; Section 2b - Once the EPF Act contains a specific provision defining the words ‘basic wage’, then there was no occasion for the appellant to expect the Court to have travelled to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to give it a different connotation or an expansive one, as sought to be urged. Clearly, that was not the intention of the legislature. (Para 4) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 – Dying Declaration – Weight Assigned in Criminal Proceedings – Great caution must be exercised while placing reliance on dying declarations even as the law attaches a presumption of truthfulness to such statements – No hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted – Duty of the court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the declarations – Held, dying declarations not sufficient evidence in present case – Appeal allowed. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8, 27 - The conduct of an accused is relevant, if such conduct influences or influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where he had concealed the weapon of offence would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act or not. (Para 78) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) - Self-respect marriages do not require a public solemnisation or declaration. (Para 8) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) - Self-respect marriage - Couples intending to marry may refrain from making a public declaration due to various reasons, such as familial opposition or fear for their safety. In such cases, enforcing a public declaration could put lives at risk and potentially result in forced separation. (Para 8) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14 - Possession of property necessary for woman to claim rights under section 14. (Para 4) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S.33C(2) - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S.6H - The appellant–workman claimed unlawful termination of his employment (sometime in 1979) and approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed his reinstatement and also directed payment of back wages at the rate of ₹8000/-. The Respondent, U.P. Power Corporation, filed a writ petition which was dismissed after the High Court had kept it pending for 11 long years, on 03.01.2006. The appellant thereafter represented to the employer on several occasions, but unsuccessfully. Ultimately, he approached the Labour Court yet again for calculation of his dues. In this second round, the Labour Court by order dated 31.08.2020 calculated back wages and directed payment of ₹8000/- per month. By the impugned order of the High Court those directions were set aside. Held, the High Court could not have done what it in fact did, i.e., to set aside the second order of the Labour Court which merely calculated the amounts due and made consequential directions. The adjudication between the parties having crystallized with the award dated 22.12.1995, which was confirmed by the High Court, there was no occasion for any intervention, much less by the High Court. In these circumstances, the second award of the Labour Court is hereby restored. The respondent–U.P. Power Corporation Limited is hereby directed to pay to the appellant the sum indicated, i.e., ₹10,54,311/-, with interest @ 11% p.a. calculable from 21.09.2006 and shall also pay ₹2,00,000/- as costs. The appeal is allowed. (Para 3, 6) Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Commissioner and employees of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) must ensure that they comply with the timelines under the IBC. In case of failure to comply with the timelines, action must be taken against erring employees. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 18 - Whether the Reference made to the Reference Court was within the limitation? Held, the issue of limitation raised by respondent- Committee before the Reference Court and before the High Court was not only not tenable but was highly unreasonable and improper. Considering the hardship caused to both the parties arrived at a Settlement and requested the High Court to dispose of the said writ petition in terms of the consent terms. The Reference Court after considering all the legal and factual aspects of the matter had rightly held that the Reference was filed with the Collector within the period of limitation as per the order passed by the High Court. The High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the said well-reasoned findings recorded by the Reference Court, and in setting aside the entire award and remanding the matter back to the Reference Court for deciding it afresh. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court being ex facie erroneous, the same are set aside. (Para 5 - 7, 9) Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2023 INSC 750

Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 - Maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. (Para 10) Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - “To give birth to an unwanted child or not” is the question posed by the appellant in this appeal, being unsuccessful before the Gujarat High Court. It is significant to note that the High Court has not taken into consideration the relevant facts that the appellant was pregnant for 25 weeks and 6 days +/- 2 weeks and the weight of foetus was around 914 grams as per ultra-sonography report. The report further stated that although there is no congenital abnormality in the foetus, the medical termination of the pregnancy could be done only if the Court permits, after taking the consent of the appellant and explaining potential risk to maternal health. However, the following paragraphs of the report have not been noted by the High Court that at present the survivor is clinically fit for above mentioned procedure and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy would not adversely affect child bearing capacity and General Health of the Survivor in future. We find that in the absence of even noticing the aforesaid portion of the report, the High Court was not right in simply holding that “the age of the foetus is almost 27 weeks as on 17.08.2023 and considering the statements made by the learned advocate for the petitioner-victim and the averments made in the application the petition for medical termination of pregnancy stands rejected”, which, in our view is ex facie contradictory. (Para 9, 10) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - A woman alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion. (Para 17) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - In Indian society, within the institution of marriage, generally pregnancy is a reason for joy and celebration and of great expectation, not only for the couple but also for their families and friends. By contrast, pregnancy outside marriage, in most cases, is injurious, particularly, after a sexual assault/abuse and is a cause for stress and trauma affecting both the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman the victim. Sexual assault or abuse of a woman is itself distressing and sexual abuse resulting in pregnancy compounds the injury. This is because such a pregnancy is not a voluntary or mindful pregnancy. (Para 13) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - In the context of abortion, the right of dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Although human dignity inheres in every individual, it is susceptible to violation by external conditions and treatment imposed by the State. The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the state is central to the idea of human dignity. Deprivation of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical well-being also injures the dignity of women. (Para 18) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 50 - Accused were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer - There was a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Conviction cannot be sustained. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 : 2023 INSC 776

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - Merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused. (Para 8) S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376(D), 228A, 506 and 120B – Cancellation of Bail - Special leave to appeal has been filed by the victim assailing the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no. 2 (Jitendra Narain), Ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands - The High Court noted that as the accused Jitendra Narain, an IAS officer has already been transferred to Delhi, if some stringent conditions are put, the Respondent No.2 would not be in a position to influence any of the witnesses in the Islands. The Division Bench also noticed that Jitendra Narain being in service, there would be no chance of him absconding. The Court further noticed that there was no material to impress that in case he was released, he would influence the witnesses or there would be any danger of justice being thwarted. On such considerations, the Division Bench proceeded to grant bail, subject to conditions. Held, not find reason to interfere with the Impugned Judgments. (Para 4, 12) XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details regarding how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, allegedly subjected her to dowry harassment. After leaving her matrimonial home in February 2009, the wife took no action until 2013 when she filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings. The allegations seem so far-fetched and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the in-laws. Permitting the criminal process to continue in such a situation would undoubtedly result in a clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings. (Para 20 - 22) Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 and 403 - Arms Act, 1959; Section 25 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004; Sections 16, 18 and 20 – Bail Application - Appellant was arrested as far back as 17.06.2021 and has been in custody throughout, except for the brief period when this Court had released him on interim bail so as to attend to the medical treatment of his wife. He has been interrogated and a charge sheet has been filed. Since all witnesses out of more than 300 witnesses named are to be examined and, in that regard, further investigation under Section 173(8) is pending, and a supplementary charge sheet would be filed, the process will not conclude in the near future. In so far as the role alleged against the appellant, as already noted by the High Court the charge sheet does not disclose that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy of planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. As per the charge, the appellant is stated to have conspired with Sachin Waze and others to eliminate Mansukh Hiren which is a matter of circumstantial evidence to be proved by the prosecution. Though the High Court has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant being a retired police officer, there is the likelihood of interference in the course of trial, in our opinion the fact that he was a police officer and has retired after rendering 37 years of service is a factor which should weigh in favour of the appellant as he has strong root in Mumbai and would be available to stand trial. The case is being prosecuted by a different agency-the NIA. That apart, there is no adverse report about the conduct of the appellant while he was out on interim bail. Further, he would also be aware that violating any of the conditions of bail would be detrimental to his own interest. In addition, it has also been urged before us that he has his mother aged about 93 years to care for, his wife who is also not enjoying good health has to undergo a reversal of bariatric surgery. Therefore, if all the above aspects are kept in view, taking note of the role assigned to the appellant as also the circumstances stated to connect the appellant to the crime and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, there would be no purpose in continuing the appellant in custody. Held, that the appellant is to be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court and the appellant diligently adhering to the said conditions and participating in the process of trial. (Para 10 - 12) Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699 : 2023 INSC 755

Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 83(1)(c) - The requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory. It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit - In this case, the election petition contained an affidavit in which the election petitioner has sworn on oath that the paragraphs where he has raised allegations of corrupt practice are true to the best of his knowledge. Though there is no separate and an independent affidavit with respect to the allegations of corrupt practice, there is substantial compliance of the requirements under Section 83(1)(c). (Para 14-15) Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705 : 2023 INSC 762

Representation of the People Act, 1951; Section 8 (3) - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 422, 324, 342, 307, 506 r/w. 149 - Stay of Conviction - High Court has considered only one aspect of the matter, namely, that the first respondent being a Member of the Parliament and a representative of his constituency, any order of suspension of membership which is consequential upon conviction would cause a fresh election to be conducted in so far as the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is concerned which would result in enormous expenses. The said aspect need not have been the only aspect which should have weighed with the High Court. The High Court ought to have considered the application seeking the suspension of conviction in its proper perspective covering all aspects bearing in mind the relevant judgments rendered by this Court and in accordance with law. On this short ground alone, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the application filed by the first respondent seeking suspension of conviction. In order to avoid a situation where there would be vacuum created till the said application is considered by the High Court, the benefit of the order impugned shall be extended to the first respondent herein for the said period by way of an interim arrangement. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Difference between 'mortgage by conditional sale' and 'sale with condition of retransfer' – Explained. (Para 25) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 58(c) - A transaction cannot be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale. (Para 25.3) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779
2. Amrit Malik v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 684
3. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722
4. Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : 2023 INSC 761
5. Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688 -
6. Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728
7. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770
8. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : 2023 INSC 733
9. Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725
10. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 729
11. Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701
12. Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2023 INSC 772
13. Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709
14. Dulu Deka v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691 : 2023 INSC 752
15. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734
16. Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 681
17. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 686
18. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2023 INSC 768
19. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735 : 2023 INSC 813
20. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696
21. In Re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 687
22. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683 : 2023 INSC 746
23. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa v. G.P Panda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713 : 2023 INSC 753
24. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758
25. Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 697
26. M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774
27. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 : 2023 INSC 776
28. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765
29. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700
30. National Commission for Homeopathy v. Swanirbhar Homeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal Gujarat State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 726
31. Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 732 : 2023 INSC 780
32. Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702
33. Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694 : 2023 INSC 760
34. Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736
35. Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699 : 2023 INSC 755
36. Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2023 INSC 743
37. Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733
38. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727
39. Rajo @Rajwa@Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 717
40. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2023 INSC 757
41. S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : 2023 INSC 751
42. S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715
43. Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : 2023 INSC 750
44. State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719 : 2023 INSC 766
45. State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721 : 2023 INSC 773
46. State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714 : 2023 INSC 754
47. Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2023 INSC 749
48. Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689
49. Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705 : 2023 INSC 762
50. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690
51. Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : 2023 INSC 764
52. Vijaya Bhiku Kadam v. Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : 2023 INSC 775
53. Vipul Pramodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 716
54. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706
55. XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767
56. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680
57. Zunaid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : 2023 INSC 778