Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index [March 21- March 27]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Ordinarily, no such mandatory order or directions should be issued while rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail that the accused person has to be arrested [Referred to M. C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.: (2003) 2 SCC 649] - When the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter. Whether the investigating agency requires custodial interrogation or not, is also to be primarily examined by that agency alone. We say no more. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Health Mission - Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme - Upheld Uttarakhand High Court judgment that under the NRHM/NHM Scheme, Ayurvedic Doctors will be entitled to parity in salary with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Singh Chauhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - "Property" - The definition in the section does not restrict the property to movables or immoveable alone - There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word 'property' to moveable property only when it is used without any qualification in Section 405. (Para 25) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405 - "Entrustment" - It extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of 'trust'. (Para 24) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406, 420 - Appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court refusing to quash an FIR registered against appellant - Allowed - Two simultaneous proceedings, arising from the same cause of action amounted to an abuse of the process of the law which is barred - It cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406,420 - In order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of cheating, the complainant had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused. (Para 42, 23-36) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 406,420 - Breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating - Fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating - A mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. (Para 34) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Practice and Procedure - Appeal against the High Court judgment which allowed writ petition answering only one issue, though four other issues were raised - Allowed - Remanded the matter to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions afresh and to adjudicate on all the other issues. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Practice and Procedure - Courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved - Adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue, would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. (Para 8.4) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Practice and Procedure - Forum shopping - Forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by the courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law. (Para 7-10) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 23 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 155(2) - Whether Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. will apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of POCSO Act - Divergent views by judges in the Division Bench - Registry directed to place the matter before CJI for assignment before an appropriate Bench. Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Once the Act does not contemplate any further period for acquisition - The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State - The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain. (Para 7, 8) Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Appeal against judgment of Bombay High Court which gave planning Authority one year further time to acquire the land once reserved relying upon a Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors (2019) 14 SCC 411 - Allowed - The direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening the time line fixed under the Statute. Consequently, the direction to acquire the land within one year is set aside. Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Review Jurisdiction - Appeal against High Court order allowing review petitions - Allowed - Impugned order, allowing the review application is a cryptic and non-reasoned order - Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference - Remanded. Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306

Review Jurisdiction - While exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed. Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 4) Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Lapse of acquisition. (Para 9) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order passed by SEBI restricting the respondent-company from accessing the capital market for one year etc - Dismissed - The general observations of the Tribunal that there is a right of cross-examination set aside. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 - There is a right of disclosure of the relevant material. However, such a right is not absolute and is subject to other considerations as indicated under paragraph 62(v) of the judgment in T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180. In this judgment, there is no specific discussion on the issue of a right to cross-examination but the broad principles laid down therein are sufficient guidance for the Tribunal to follow. (Para 35) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15Z - Scope and ambit of Statutory appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal orders to Supreme Court - The Supreme Court will exercise jurisdiction only when there is a question of law arising for consideration from the decision of the Tribunal. A question of law may arise when there is an erroneous construction of the legal provisions of the statute or the general principles of law. In such cases, the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of Section 15Z may substitute its decision on any question of law that it considers appropriate. (Para 20.1) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15Z, 15T - Question of law - Not every interpretation of the law would amount to a question of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15Z. The Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 15T, apart from acting as an appellate authority on fact, also interprets the Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder and systematically evolves a legal regime. These very principles are applied consistently for structural evolution of the sectorial laws. This freedom to evolve and interpret laws must belong to the Tribunal to subserve the Regulatory regime for clarity and consistency. These are policy and functional considerations which the Supreme Court will keep in mind while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 15Z. (Para 20.2) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

Service Law - Regularization - State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 - The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (supra) was, (1) to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future, and (2) to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past and who have continued for a very long time. The decision of Umadevi (supra) may be applicable in a case where the appointments are irregular on the sanctioned posts in regular establishment. The same does not apply to temporary appointments made in a project/programme. (Para 8) State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 24 Mar 2022, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Service Law - Services rendered by an employee on work charge basis cannot be considered for the grant of benefit of first time bound promotion if the employee is absorbed in service on a different pay-scale. (Para 3.1, 4) State of Maharashtra v Madhukar Antu Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 (Kerala) - Tax on Lotteries Act, 2004 (Karnataka) - Constitutional Validity upheld - Karnataka and Kerala State Legislatures possessed legislative competence to enact such Acts. (Para 124) State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

Words and Phrases - Question of law - Phrases such as, 'question of law', are open textual expressions, used in statutes to convey a certain meaning which the legislature would not have intended to be read in a pedantic manner. When words of the Sections allow narrow as well as wide interpretations, courts of law have developed the art and technique of finding the correct meaning by looking at the words in their context. (Para 14-16) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307
2. Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301
3. Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 312
4. Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315
5. Manju Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 311
6. N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302
7. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sanjesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303
8. Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318
9. Premlata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317
10. Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306 -
11. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314
12. Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321 -
13. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319 -
14. Special Land Acquisition Officer v. N. Savitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316
15. State of Gujarat v. R.J. Pathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313
16. State of Karnataka v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309
17. State of Karnataka v. Umesh, 22 Mar 2022 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304
18. State of Maharashtra v Madhukar Antu Patil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 308
19. State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjay Singh Chauhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 320
20. Union of India v. Lt. Gen SK Sahni, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310
21. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305