SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Advocates Strikes

The Supreme Court requested all high courts to constitute grievance redressal committees comprising the chief justice and two other senior judges, one from the Bar and another from services to avert lawyers' strikes. District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 331

Arbitration

Supreme Court deprecates practice of filing applications in disposed of SLPs to side-step arbitration process. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Civil Law

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Inconsistencies in plaint averments not a sufficient reason to reject plaint. G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Commercial enterprises can raise consumer disputes in relation to goods or services unconnected to profit generation. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Criminal Law

If the prosecution proposes death sentence, it must produce before the Trial Court information about the background of the accused. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Supreme Court shocked to see police filing closure report in case where FIR was quashed; directs to discontinue such practice. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Appellate Court should separately hear convict on quantum of sentence when acquittal is reversed. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Asaram Bapu Case : Supreme Court sets aside Rajasthan HC order to summon IPS officer Ajay Lamba as witness. State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Trial Courts, Public Prosecutors should be vigilant while framing of charges against accused. Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Death Penalty

Mitigating Circumstances - Wherever the prosecution is of the opinion that the crime an accused is convicted for, is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out the exercise of placing the materials, in terms of Manoj vs State of MP, for evaluation. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

E-Filing

It would defeat the purpose if in addition to e-filing, the ITATs insist on filing of the appeals in the physical mode. This has to be discontinued since it imposes an unnecessary burden on litigants. If there is a training deficit in respect of the Members of the ITAT, this shall be attended to immediately so that all Members of the ITAT are equipped to handle e-filed cases. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Electricity

Contract Process - The Supreme Court has reiterated the requirement of a specific show-cause notice before imposing penalty. Noting that the show-cause notice issued by the Madhya Pradesh Power Distribution Company (M.P. DISCOM) was only about debarment, the court remarked that the action of imposing penalty without even putting the tenderee/ appellant to notice with respect to the same, cannot be approved. Isolators and Isolators v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330

DISCOMS to pay ‘change in law’ compensation for all additional charges levied by state instrumentalities to power generating companies. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Appellate Electricity Tribunal cannot casually render findings of coercion without proper pleading, proof or probe. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Environment

Aarey Case - The Supreme Court imposes Rs. 10 lakh fine on Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) for seeking to cut more trees than allowed; but allows it to cut 177 trees. In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Land Acquisition

The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination. Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312

Hysterectomy

Unnecessary Hysterectomies - From the counter affidavits filed by the States of Rajasthan, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, it emerges that there is a considerable degree of substance in the facts. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Unnecessary Hysterectomies - Union government shall take all necessary steps in accordance with the Guidelines to effectuate the public interest which is sought to be achieved. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Unnecessary Hysterectomies - All the States and Union Territories must take stringent action for blacklisting hospitals once it is detected that any unnecessary hysterectomy was carried out or that the procedure was taken recourse to without the informed consent of the patient. We direct that necessary action be taken in accordance with law. (Para 19) Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Menstrual Hygiene

Menstrual Hygiene, Distribution of free sanitary pads to school children, establishment of disposal units - It would be appropriate if the Union Government engages with all the State governments and Union Territories to ensure that a uniform national policy is formulated with sufficient leeway for the States and Union Territories to make adjustments, based on the prevailing conditions in their territories - Bearing in mind the importance of the issue which has been raised, we direct that all States and Union Territories must submit their menstrual hygiene management strategies and plans which are being executed either with the help of funds provided by the Central Government or through their own funds to the Mission Steering Group of the National Health Mission within a period of four weeks - the States and Union Territories shall also indicate to the Mission Steering Group of the National Health Mission the appropriate ratio of female toilets for residential and nonresidential schools for their respective territories - All States and Union Territories shall also indicate the steps which have been taken to provide for the availability of low cost sanitary pads and vending machines in schools and for appropriate disposal mechanisms. Besides making a provision for ensuring the availability of low cost sanitary pads and vending machines in all schools, they shall also ensure that disposal mechanisms are available in schools/school complexes with enrollment of female students in upper primary, secondary and higher secondary classes for safe disposal of sanitary pads. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 309

Mental illness

Supreme Court orders release of daughter suffering from mental illness after 12 year sentence for homicide of father. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Migrant Labourers

The Supreme Court directed state governments to grant ration cards to migrant or unorganized workers who do not have them but are registered on the centre's e-Shram portal, within three months. In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 332

Partition

For interpreting Section 121 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, analogy can be drawn from Order XX Rule 18 Of CPC. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Precedent

The dismissal of the special leave petition in limine does not amount to affirmation of the view taken by the High Court. Unless the judgment of the High Court is affirmed, at least, with short reasoning, the same would not amount to binding precedent. (Para 6) Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312

Right of Pre-emption

The pre-emptor must establish that he had the right to pre-empt on the date of sale, on the date of the filing of the suit and on the date of the passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance. If the claimant-plaintiff loses that right or the vendee improves his right equal or above the right of the claimant before the adjudication of the suit, the suit for pre-emption would fail. (Para 17) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

SARFAESI Act

Supreme Court deprecates High Courts entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters; frowns upon borrowers approaching HCs to consider offers to banks. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Bank can't forfeit deposit made after auction purchase when the bidder wasn't informed of challenge pending against sale. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Service Law - Government servants cannot claim the benefits of Double Overtime Allowance Benefits under the Factories Act, dehors the service rules - Unlike those employed in factories and industrial establishments, persons in public service who are holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State are required to place themselves at the disposal of the Government all the time - Persons holding civil posts or in the civil services of the State enjoy certain privileges and hence, the claim made by the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court, in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Service Law - there are three different categories of employment, if not more, in the country. They are, (i) employment which is statutorily protected under labour welfare legislations, so as to prevent exploitation and unfair labour practices; (ii) employment which falls outside the purview of the labour welfare legislations and hence, governed solely by the terms of the contract; and (iii) employment of persons to civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State. Any Court or Tribunal adjudicating a dispute relating to conditions of service of an employee, should keep in mind the different parameters applicable to these three different categories of employment. (Para 23) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Specific Performance

Party can't claim time is essence of contract when specific performance of terms not done. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Tax

Transfer Pricing - High Courts not precluded from scrutinising ITAT’s determination of Arm’s Length Price. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Penalty leviable under S. 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is statutory and mandatory; commissioner/ao has no discretion. State of Gujarat v. Saw Pipes Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Unlawful Activities

No reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true: Supreme Court grants bail to two alleged maoists after 4.5 years' custody. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317

Unlawful Assembly

Section 149 IPC will be attracted if five or more persons specifically named in fir are facing trial separately. Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Waqf

Beneficiary of waqf, not being trustee or co-owner, can claim title of waqf property by adverse possession. Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Supreme Court has reiterated that the courts ought not to normally interfere with the arbitral proceedings, especially till the time an arbitral award is not passed - The top court has deprecated the practice of filing applications in disposed of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in order to side-step the arbitration process, adding that the said applications must not be entertained by the court. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into. When the ground pleaded for rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint - Merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. The question was whether the plaint discloses the cause of action. (Para 6-9) G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; Section 121 - Instrument of Partition - For the purpose of interpreting Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act, the Court can safely draw an analogy from the provisions contained in Order XX, Rule 18 C.P.C. which pertain to the procedure to be followed on the passing of the decree for the partition of the property. (Para 28) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; Section 121 - When a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the “decree”. (Para 30) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Supreme Court directs Police to not file closure report in cases where proceedings/FIR have been quashed by the High Court - In case of quashing of the criminal proceedings/FIRs by the High Court, there is no question of preparing/filing a closure report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2) - Appellate court reverses acquittal of two accused in murder case - However imposes sentences on them without hearing them on sentence as per Section 235(2) - Supreme Court sets aside the sentence finding it to be ex-facie illegal as accused were not heard - In view of sub Section (2) of Section 235 of CrPC, the court is obliged to hear the accused persons after their conviction on the quantum of sentence before passing a sentence against them - The principle of according opportunity of hearing to the convict before sentencing him is equally applicable where the sentencing is done by the appellate court. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 391 - Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken - The power to take additional evidence in an appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and thus, must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance of the prayer. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 211-224, 464 - Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous when it comes to the framing of charges. In a given case, any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a long delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be passed under sub-section (2) of Section 464 of CrPC. Apart from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge. (Para 16) Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 311 and 391 - Power of the court to take additional evidence - Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. consists of two parts; the first gives power to the court to summon any witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings, whether the person is listed as a witness, or is in attendance though not summoned as a witness. Secondly, the trial court has the power to recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. On the other hand, the discretion under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be read as somewhat more restricted in comparison to Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., as the appellate court is dealing with an appeal, after the trial court has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the person being prosecuted. The appellate court can examine the evidence in depth and in detail, yet it does not possess all the powers of the trial court as it deals with cases wherein the decision has already been pronounced. (Para 16) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The right to health is an intrinsic element of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Life, to be enjoyed in all its diverse elements, must be based on robust conditions of health. There has been a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the women who underwent unnecessary hysterectomies. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Supreme Court deprecates High Court entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters, especially against private banks - When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State, is one of a status. It is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued under Article 309 or its proviso. (Para 21) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Tests to determine if goods or services were purchased or availed for commercial purposes - Two fold tests- (i) whether the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose; or (ii) whether the services are availed for any commercial purpose - If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose, then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of the Act, 1986. For example, if a manufacturer who is producing product A, for such production he may be required to purchase articles which may be raw material, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose. As against this, if the same manufacturer purchases a refrigerator, television or air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even for his office has no direct or indirect nexus to generate profits, cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for afore-stated reason he is qualified to approach the Consumer Forum under the Act, 1986 - Similarly, a hospital which hires services of a medical practitioner, it would be a commercial purpose, but if a person avails such services for his ailment, it would be held to be a noncommercial purpose. (Para 39) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Act, 1986 is a social benefit-oriented legislation and, therefore, the Court has to adopt a constructive liberal approach while construing the provisions of the Act - The provisions of the Act, 1986 thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit-oriented legislation. (Para 21, 24) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - there is no such exclusion from the definition of the term “consumer” either to a commercial enterprise or to a person who is covered under the expression “person” defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, 1986 merely because it is a commercial enterprise. (Para 36) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Whether a commercial enterprise can be held to be a "consumer" in relation to dispute relating to insurance policy availed by it - Held yes in the facts of the case - hiring of insurance policy is clearly an act for indemnifying a risk of loss/damages and there is no element of profit generation - clarifies that it is not a general rule and depends on the facts of the case. (Para 44 to 47) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d) - Taking a wide meaning of the words “for any commercial purpose”, it would mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose, but in a case where goods purchased or services hired is an activity, which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be a commercial purpose. (Para 40) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Criminal Trial - Right to speedy trial, including speedy disposal of an appeal, is not the exclusive right of an accused, but an obligation of the court towards the society in general, and the victim in particular. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Electricity Act, 2003 – Appeal under Section 125 – Plea of Fraud, Coercion, Duress, or Undue Influence – Party that sets up plea of fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence must prima facie establish it by laying out material facts – Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) not to render findings on coercion without proper and specific pleadings, adequate evidence, or without conducting a probe, in a casual or cavalier way – Held, concurrent findings of APTEL and state commission unsustainable owing to the absence of evidence of coercion and particularity of pleadings beyond a bare allegation – Appeal allowed. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Electricity Act, 2003 - Supreme Court has lamented the practice of Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) and power generating companies pursuing endless litigation challenging the concurrent findings arrived at by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The Court has asked the Union of India through the Ministry of Power (MoP), to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by DISCOMS to the power generating companies under the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). All additional charges which are payable on account of orders, directions, Notifications, Regulations, etc., issued by the instrumentalities of the State, after the cut-off date specified in the PPAs, will have to be considered to be ‘Change in Law’ events for payment of compensation under the PPAs. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Income Tax Act, 1961; Chapter X - Any determination of the arm’s length price under Chapter X of the Act de hors the relevant guidelines stipulated under the Act and the Rules, can be considered as perverse, which may be considered as a substantial question of law. Thus, in each case, the High Court should examine whether the guidelines laid down in the Act and the Rules are followed while determining the arm’s length price. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 260A - High Court is not precluded from considering the determination of the arm’s length price determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in exercise of its powers under Section 260A - there cannot be any absolute proposition of law that in all cases where the Tribunal has determined the arm’s length price the same is final and cannot be the subject matter of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) - the partition having been accepted as per the “Naksha Be”, the joint status of the parties stood severed. The High Court misinterpreted the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and erred in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the appellate court. The Bench quashed the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) ; Section 118 - Disposal of other question - When a Revenue Officer takes a decision under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, for partition of property, then the said partition would stand completed and the joint status of the parties would stand severed; subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. (Para 30) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Penal Code 1860; Section 149 - if an offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. (Para 10.2) Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Penal Code, 1860 - Trial Court has no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or life imprisonment without entitlement to remission for a fixed term, in serious crimes which carry the death penalty apart from life sentence as a sentencing option - The court took note that the Apex Court in Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613, has approved a special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years which may be longer than the minimum sentence specified in Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and may extend to considerably long periods, such as 30 years. However, Sriharan (2015) reserves the power to impose such special or fixed term sentences only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and five persons are facing the trial may be separately, Section 149 IPC would be attracted. (Para 10) Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Prosecution has failed to prove the real genesis of the incident. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that the accused had any motive to commit the murder of her own father. On the contrary, her father had brought her to the house of PW.1 for treating her mental ailment. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the act was done by the accused, with the intention to cause the death of the deceased. The case would fall under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC and as such, conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would not be tenable. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. Since the accused has been incarcerated for a period of more than 12 years, the said sentence would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-I of the IPC. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 - To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused. (Para 11) Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Sales Tax Act, 1969 (Gujarat) - Penalty and interest leviable under Sections 45(6) and 47(4A), respectively, are statutory and mandatory in nature and there is no discretion vested in the Commissioner / Assessing Officer to levy or not to levy the penalty and interest other than as prescribed. State of Gujarat v. Saw Pipes Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule 9(5) of SARFAESI Rules cannot be pressed into service since the auction purchaser was not informed regarding the proceedings pending before DRT at the time of auction or even thereafter - Directs refund of the deposit forfeited by the bank. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Writ petitions in SARFAESI matters - Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Specific Relief Act 1963 - In sale of immovable property there is no presumption that time is the essence of the contract, however, the court may infer performance in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident from the express terms of the contract, from the nature of the property, and from the surrounding circumstances. (Para 32) Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Specific Relief Act 1963 - When specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence does not arise - Time would not be of essence in a contract wherein the obligations of one party are dependent on the fulfillment of obligations of another party. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - Materials placed on record do not state reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true - bail granted to two alleged Maoists. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317

Waqf Act 1995 - a beneficiary of a waqf is not a fiduciary - The beneficiary of a waqf is endowed with rights in terms of the waqf deed. We are unable to cull out any duty, as such, to protect the interest of another. No doubt, it could be said that as the property in a waqf, vests in the Almighty, there must be a concern and, undoubtedly, a moral duty to act in a manner that the object of the wakf is fostered. But a beneficiary is not like a Trustee, who assumes possession in his character as a Trustee, coming under the restraint of discarding his character as Trustee and donning the robes of an encroacher or a person asserting hostile title. (Para 65, 66) Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Waqf Act, 1995 - A beneficiary of a waqf, however, being neither a trustee nor a co-owner of waqf property, can acquire title through adverse possession even if it is the property of the waqf it is found - No embargo against a beneficiary of a waqf claiming acquisition of title by adverse possession. (Para 55, 63) Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323

NOMINAL INDEX

1. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333
2. District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 331
3. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310
4. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326
5. G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311
6. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327
7. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329
8. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315
9. In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 332
10. In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 334
11. Isolators and Isolators v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330
12. Jaya Thakur v Government of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 309
13. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324
14. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308
15. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325
16. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313
17. Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323
18. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328
19. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321
20. Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312
21. Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314
22. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320
23. State of Gujarat v. Saw Pipes Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319
24. State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316
25. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335
26. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322
27. Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318
28. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336
29. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317