SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Advocate

Supreme Court 'shocked' to see lawyer filing Article 32 petition against state to recover legal fees. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Civil Law

Concealment of material facts from the Court - A litigant can be nonsuited in case he is found guilty of concealing material facts from the court or misstating the same. (Para 54) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

Revenue Dept can't recover refunded cess amount because refund was based on a judgment which was later overruled. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) v. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Appropriateness of prayer sought is not an issue to be considered while deciding application seeking rejection of plaint. Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Contempt of Court

Unconditional Apology - The Supreme Court granted relief to the Chairman & Managing Director and the General Manager (Human Resources) of the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd, who were sentenced to 2 months simple imprisonment by the Telangana High Court for contempt of Court. Setting aside the High Court judgment in an appeal filed by the NTPC officers, held that in a case of contempt, even if the High Court came to a conclusion that there was a deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of the court, it could have considered the unconditional apology tendered by NTPC and concluded the matter. (Para 14) Gurudeep Singh v. Regonda Srinivas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530 : 2023 INSC 617

Timeline stipulated by court but the process of recruitment is the prerogative of appellant. The judgment by the High court in 2021 did not debar NTPC from issuing a fresh notification. It only directed them to finish the recruitment process within 2 months. Therefore, it would not constitute a contempt of court. In the absence of a specific direction to the effect that the recruitment be concluded in pursuance of the notification of 2017 alone, we are unable to hold that issuance of a fresh recruitment notification would constitute contempt of court. (Para 13) Gurudeep Singh v. Regonda Srinivas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530 : 2023 INSC 617

Criminal Trial

Ballistic expert evidence - In cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent. (Para 23, 24) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614

Circumstantial Evidence - The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established -There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” - The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 5-8) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614

Extra judicial confession - Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support. (Para 12) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614

Murder case based on circumstantial evidence - Death caused by firearms - In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect in the prosecution case - Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt - Accused acquitted. Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614

Delay & Laches

Delay & Laches - Effect of – Principles explained. (Para 23 – 34) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

Disability

Persons with Disability Act, 1995 mandated reservation in promotions too : Supreme Court grants relief to RBI employee. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Enforcement Directorate

Supreme Court Invalidates Extensions Of ED Director SK Mishra's Term; Permits Him To Continue Till July 31. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Supreme Court rejects argument that 'piecemeal’ extensions will affect independence of directors of CBI & ED; upholds amendments to CVC Act & DSPE Act. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Environment

NGT cannot pass directions relying on recommendations of an expert committee without giving parties a chance to rebut it. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

Expert Opinion

The recommendations made by an expert Committee are not binding on the NGT and are only to be considered as a guide to allow the Tribunal to arrive at its decision. Experts’ opinion is only by way of assistance in arriving at a final conclusion. In the instant case the report of the expert Committee as well as the recommendations have been made the basis of the directions and such an approach is improper. (Para 17) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

Judgment

Nullification of court direction by legislation impermissible without altering basis of judgment : Supreme Court in ED director's case. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Judicial Service

Transfer - The Supreme Court clarified that its permission is not required for the High Courts to transfer Presiding officers of Special Courts dealing with cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs. (Para 5) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Land Acquisition

Delay - The use of the land for public purposes for the last several years is certainly a relevant factor for adopting a liberal approach while considering the prayer for condoning the delay. (Para 14) Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Land Acquisition - Once proceedings under 1894 act are held to be valid, claimant can't seek compensation under the 2013 Act. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Pavement built on acquired land encroached by vendors; Supreme Court asks DDA to take action. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Pavement built on acquired land encroached by vendors – Held, A citizen has lost his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk. (Para 18) Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Motor Accident

'No negligence' finding in the final report has no bearing on the claim petition as the standard of proof is different. Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621

MV Act - Supreme Court enhances compensation of victim with 75% disability, awards compensation for loss of marriage prospects. Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Narcotic Drugs

NDPS Act - In case of prolonged incarceration, liberty will override embargo under Section 37 : Supreme Court grants bail. Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533

Notings in Government File

Inter-departmental communications cannot be relied upon as a basis of claim of any right. Mere notings in the file do not amount to an order until and unless the same is communicated to the cornered party. In the present case, the Government neither passed an order nor communicated anything to the respondents regarding allotment of land. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to any relief solely based on the official notings. (Para 51) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

Official Notice Doctrine

The parties must be informed of the materials relied on by an authority and must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut them. The data on which an authority is acting must be apprised to the party against whom the data is to be used as such a party would then have an opportunity not only to refute it but also supplement, explain or give a different perspective to the facts upon which the authority relies. The aforesaid doctrine applies with greater force to a judicial / adjudicatory body. (Para 16, Referred: Schwartz on Administrative Law) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

Preventive Detention

All laws on preventive detention are necessarily harsh. They curtail personal liberty of an individual, who is kept behind bars without any trial. In such cases, procedure is all a detenue has. Laws of preventive detention must therefore be strictly applied. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Rent Control & Eviction

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 - Though eviction suit can't be filed before 5 years of tenancy, the Supreme Court affirms the decree as it was passed after 38 years. Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Service Law

The act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had found 65 employees entitled to regularization of employment but only 35 could be regularized, since only 35 posts were available. The Income Tax Department to regularize the services of the remaining entitled employees, from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized, and to pay the back wages and other consequential benefits within a period of six months. (Para 8 & 13) Raman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520

Tax

Income Tax Act - Completed / unabated assessments cannot be reopened by ao if no incriminating material is found during search. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532

Writ Petition

Writ petition not maintainable when civil suit for same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003; Section 25(d) - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Section 4B(1) – Held, as illegal the extension given to the term of Enforcement Directorate Chief for violating the mandate of the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment in the Common Cause case that he should not be given further extension. However, the Court allowed him to continue in his post till July 31, 2023, taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Union Government regarding peer review of the international body Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and smooth transfer of power. (Para 116, 119 & 121) Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003; Section 25(d) - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Section 4B(1) - Upheld the amendments which allow the Centre to extend the term of the heads of ED and CBI up to 5 years. The scope of judicial review over legislation is very limited and that the appointments of these officers are made by a high-level committee, the Court upheld these amendments, opining that there are sufficient safeguards. Extension can be granted to high-level officials in the public interest and with reasons in writing. (Para 90 - 94) Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 23 Rule 1 - A writ petition, filed pursuant to withdrawal of a civil suit for the same relief when liberty is not granted to file afresh, is not maintainable. The principles of constructive res judicata laid down in Order 23 Rule 1 CPC would also apply to writ proceedings. (Para 38) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Whether an appropriate prayer should have sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit and not an issue to be considered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. (Para 5) Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1, Rule 9 - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court where the court had held that where the assessee had been held entitled to the refund of the Educational cess and Secondary & Higher Educational cess on the basis of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in M/s SRD Nutrients (P) Limited vs. CCE, (2018) 1 SCC 105, which was applicable at the relevant time, the Revenue Department was not entitled to make recovery of the said refunded amount on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492, where the decision in M/s SRD Nutrients was overruled by the top court. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) v. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Nullification of Court direction by legislation impermissible without altering basis of judgment. (Para 114) Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (4) - Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002; Section 19 and 21 - The detenue had made his representation before the authorities. The decision was taken by the Advisory Board without considering the representation. To that extent, the decision of the Advisory Board and subsequent decision of the State Government extending the period of detention becomes bad as the statutory procedural requirement have not been complied with. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - The petitioner was the Additional Advocate General of State of Uttar Pradesh seeking a writ of mandamus against the State Government to clear the bills of his outstanding professional fees. According to the State, all the outstanding bills have been disbursed to the petitioner. Held, a serious doubt whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India should be entertained at the instance of an advocate representing the State for recovery of his fees and that also when there is a serious dispute about the entitlement of the petitioner to receive fees based on certain bills. Therefore, unable to pass any further orders on this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, the other available remedies of the petitioner are expressly kept open which he can avail in accordance with law. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Constitution of India; Article 16 - the intention of Article 16 was not to compromise on administrative efficiency. A certain portion (promotion) cannot be reserved for a certain class of citizen and not the others who were also initially appointed on the basis of horizontal reservation, the only exception being SC/ST appointees as envisaged in Article 16(4A). (Para 11, S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 132, 132A, 147, 148, 153A - In view of the judgment of the Supreme court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., [(2023) SCC Online SC 481], an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make additions to assessee’s income in respect of completed / unabated assessments if no incriminating material has been found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, in terms of the said judgment, the completed / unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned under the said provisions - Therefore, AO’s powers under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act were saved in terms of Supreme Court’s judgment in Abhisar Buildwell (2023). Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Once it is found that the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are valid, then the claimant is not entitled to seek compensation under the 2013 Act. If the state has either paid compensation or taken possession then proceedings under 1894 would continue to be valid. (Para 5, 17) Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Disability - Inability of the Claimant to work due to the disability cannot be denied on the ground that his Employer was not examined or no letter was produced from the Employer. The evidence of disability such as disability certificate and identity card issued by Directorate for the Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens, cannot be brushed aside. (Para 9) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Marriage Prospects - On account of the injuries sustained claimant has suffered 75% whole body disability. He has clearly deposed that on account of the injuries sustained and consequential disability suffered his marriage prospects have become bleak. Even in the affidavit filed on 30.09.2022 he has deposed that he has remained unmarried and none has come forward to marry him. In other words, the prospects of appellant getting married would remain a dream and for loss of the same he has to be suitably awarded compensation. Hence, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the “loss of marriage prospects. (Para 11) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Pain and Suffering - Enhanced the compensation towards ‘Pain and Suffering’ to additional Rs. 50,000/, while observing that the Claimant was hospitalized for ten days and was in continuous treatment thereafter. (Para 8) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Salary - Compensation on the aspect of salary to be revised as per the amount mentioned in salary certificate. Claimant has deposed that he was working as Marketing Executive in a private company and drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. as per salary certificate. No doubt claimant did not examine his employer. On this ground, it cannot be gain said by the Insurer that claimant was unable to earn or was not earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. The accident in question had occurred in the year 2007. Even a mason at that point of time was earning not less than Rs.300/- per day or in other words Rs.9,000/- p.m. during 2007. Claimant being a graduate and working as Marketing Executive, his plea of salary being Rs.8,000/- p.m. deserves to be accepted, as it is within proximity of truth and same could not have been ignored by the Tribunal and the High Court on hyper technical grounds. (Para 10) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 15.9 Lakhs from the previous amount of Rs. 2.3 Lakhs, to a motor vehicle accident victim, who sustained 75% whole body injury. The Bench has additionally granted compensation towards ‘loss of marriage prospects’ since the Claimant remained unmarried due to disability. (Para 11, 13) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - While considering a petition for compensation for death or injury in a road accident, the standard of proof to be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is the preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would not apply. The final report in the criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits. (Para 9, 10) Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - In case of prolonged incarceration, conditional liberty will override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the Act. Prolonged incarceration is against fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, ie, protection of life and personal liberty. (Para 4) Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Principles of Natural Justice - Expert Opinion - the National Green Tribunal (NGT) being an adjudicatory body must comply with the principles of natural justice. If the NGT intends to rely on the report of an expert Committee or any other material that is brought to its knowledge, the concerned party must be informed of it in advance, and be given an opportunity for discussion and rebuttal. (Para 16) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - The appellants were not given an opportunity to file their objections to the recommendations of the Expert Committee. The Court noted that the recommendations were uploaded on 15.01.2022 and the Tribunal passed its final order on 18.01.2022, i.e, only three days later. Accordingly, on the ground of noncompliance of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the NGT for re-consideration from the stage of recommendation of the Expert Committee. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 19(1) - Principles of Natural Justice - the NGT is a judicial body and therefore exercises adjudicatory function. The very nature of an adjudicatory function would carry with it the requirement that principles of natural justice are complied with, particularly when there is an adversarial system of hearing of the cases before the Tribunal or for that matter before the Courts in India. The NGT though is a special adjudicatory body constituted by an Act of Parliament, nevertheless, the discharge of its function must be in accordance with law which would also include compliance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in Section 19(1) of the Act. (Para 15) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Reservation in Promotions - the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct RBI to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion to an employee with disability, who was denied the same for a long time. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Issue of the RBI not condoning the shortfall of marks - It was rather harsh on the part of the RBI to apply the same standards for general candidates and those with disabilities. RBI, as a model employer, ought to have taken an informed decision in this regard commensurate with the aspirations of persons with disabilities. (Para 48, Dipankar Datta; J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – the Act, 1995 did not contain any express provision for reservation to persons with disabilities serving in the feeder cadre, though there were provisions indicating that merely because an employee is one living with a disability, they ought not to be denied promotion. However, mere absence of an express mandate for reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities did not absolve the Government from keeping reserved vacancies on promotional posts. (Para 13 & 16, Dipankar Datta; J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - In 2003, the employee had appeared in the All India Merit Test to secure promotion to a Class-I post. But he fell short of the qualifying marks by 3 marks. He made representations seeking condonation of the shortfall marks, which were not considered. The Supreme granted notional promotion to him to the post of Assistant Manager Grade A from the date of presentation of his writ petition before the Bombay High Court (27th Sept, 2006) and actual promotion from the last date for compliance of the order of the High Court (15th Sept, 2014). The Bench granted two months’ time to complete the process and four months’ time to compute and release the monetary benefits accruing to him. It also clarified that in two years when he retires, in computing his retiral benefits his promotion from 27th Sept, 2006 should be taken into consideration. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Rajasthan); Section 14 (3) - the objective of section 14(3) of the Act was to safeguard the interest of tenants. As per the provision, Eviction suit cannot be filed by landlord within 5 years of tenancy. However, the court opined that even though in this case, the eviction suit was filed within 5 years, 38 years have gone by since then. This itself would cure the defect in the eviction suit. (Para 16, 18) Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Section 33 and 34 - Reasonable accommodation ought not to open gates for demands by those benefitting other kinds of horizontal reservation, for reservation in promotional vacancies in public services. (Para 14, S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613

Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (Orissa); Section 15(b) - There is huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of their appropriate remedy. Record of rights was finalised in 1962. As admitted in the writ petition, objections were filed by the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest before that. Remedy, after publication of the final record of rights, was revision under Section 15(b) of the 1958 Act, to be filed within one year. No remedy was availed of. Nearly three decades after finalisation of record of rights, application was filed before the Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable after final record of rights is published. When no relief was granted by the Settlement Officer, the respondents kept quiet for 13 years before filing a civil suit in the year 2003. It was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2007. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008, which is the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal. The aforesaid facts show that the writ petition to claim relief was filed after 46 years of finalisation of record of rights, which was highly belated. Hence, the respondents were not entitled to any relief. (Para 34) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 519
2. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) v. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522
3. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : 2023 INSC 620
4. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518 : 2023 INSC 616
5. Gurudeep Singh v. Regonda Srinivas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530 : 2023 INSC 617
6. Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : 2023 INSC 611
7. Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621
8. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529
9. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532
10. Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614
11. Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533
12. Raman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520
13. Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525
14. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521 : 2023 INSC 613
15. Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517
16. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524 : 2023 INSC 618
17. State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : 2023 INSC 619
18. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523