SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Animal Welfare

Supreme Court upholds laws allowing jallikattu, kambala & bull-cart racing In Tamil Nadu, Karnataka & Maharashtra. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

'Century old practice': Supreme Court disagrees with 2014 verdict which held that jallikattu was not part of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Jallikattu Case - Supreme Court refuses to extend fundamental rights to animals. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Jallikattu law can't be termed arbitrary merely because bulls lack natural ability to run like horses. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Bail

The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the practice prevailing in Orissa High Court whereby different bail applications arising out of same FIR are listed before different Benches of the High Court. Such practice leads to ‘anomalous situation’ as some accused may be granted bail by a Bench while some other accused persons (in the same crime) may be denied bail by a different Bench, notwithstanding that all of them are similarly placed in many cases. Pradhani Jani v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 455

Civil Law

'Lis Pendens' under O. XXI Rule 102 CPC to transfer after suit's dismissal - Executing Court should determine if transfer was before appeal. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Constitution

Article 299 | No immunity from statute merely because a contract is entered in the President's name. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459

The Writ Court cannot stop implementation of a statutory provision without holding it unconstitutional. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Electricity

Electricity dues of previous occupier can be recovered from subsequent occupier of premises. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Frivolous Litigations

Just as bad coins drive out good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous, irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to follow such course. (Para 20) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

The matter should be viewed more seriously when people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego. (Para 20) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Judgment

Practice and Procedure - If the judgment is not delivered within 6 months after reserving it, then it should be assigned to another bench for fresh hearing, and not to the same bench. Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Judicial Service

The Supreme Court delivered split judgment in a matter pertaining to Rajasthan High Court denying appointment of applicants to the post of Civil Judge on the ground that they had submitted the category certificate beyond the cut-off date. The Bench expressed a divergent view on the issue. Justice Rastogi quashed the order of the Rajasthan High Court and allowed the appeal. He was of the opinion that to do complete justice, Article 142 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked to direct the respondents to consider each of the appellants for appointment who could not be adjusted against the advertised vacancies. However, Justice Trivedi concluded that the appellants who are the defaulters could not be given preferential treatment by accepting the certificates produced by them as valid, though the same were obtained by them after the last date for the submission of applications fixed in the advertisement. Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 460

Adverse observations against Judicial Officers - Orders making adverse observations with regard to the manner in which a judicial officer has exercised discretion in any matter should not be made without opportunity to the person concerned whose career and esteem will be affected. Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 458

District judiciary should not be called 'subordinate judiciary'. Judges are not employees of state. District judiciary's independence part of basic structure. Increase in salary of high court judges must reflect in same proportion to district judges. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452

The inability of a judicial officer to reach the prescribed targets of disposal or not satisfying the quantitative norms during the initial stage of the career need not be viewed seriously. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452

The increment which becomes due to the judicial officer on the day after his retirement may be notionally included in the calculation of his pension as his last pay, subject to the vertical ceiling of Rs. 2,24,100/. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452

The Supreme Court provided a timeline for the Center and the States to pay retired judicial officers pension as per the enhanced pay scale as recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Tax

No service tax applicable on user development fee collected from passengers by Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad international airports. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Thief can't be assessed as 'owner' of stolen property under Section 69A Income Tax Act. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act - Carrier of Goods not an ‘Owner’; Bitumen not a ‘valuable article’ under S. 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Wakf

Conducting survey is prerequisite before declaring property as wakf. Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994; Section 22A - “User development fee” (UDF) levied and collected by the airport operation, maintenance, and development entities from passengers, is a statutory levy, and thus, it is not subjected to levy of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. There is a distinction between the charges, fee and rent collected under Section 22 of the AAI Act and the UDF levied and collected under Section 22A of the AAI Act, the UDF is in the form of a ‘tax or cess’ collected for financing the cost of future projects. There was no consideration for the services provided by the assessee-entities to the customer, visitors, passengers, vendors, etc. As a part of the Union’s economic policies, the upgradation and renovation of airports are funded through UDF, which is a statutory levy, the fact that the UDF amount is not deposited in a government treasury, per se, does not make it any less a statutory levy or compulsory exaction. Nor does its discretionary nature render it any less a statutory levy. Merely because the funds are kept in an escrow account, and their utilization is monitored separately, it does not undermine the public nature of the funds in any manner. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - the Arbitrator appointed by Union, who is an employee of the Union, is ineligible to be appointed as the Arbitrator as per Para 1 of Schedule VII read with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 102 - the Executing Court would have to determine upon evidence whether the transfer of immovable property which was made post dismissal of suit, was made after institution of appeal/further litigation or not, in order to attract the principle of lis pendens. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 - Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree - Section 47 of CPC confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Executing Court to prevent unnecessary litigation and to achieve speedy disposal of the questions arising in relation to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint. (Para 16) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Constitution of India, 1950 - In the absence of specific pleadings, a writ court cannot get into the issues of repugnancy or lack of legislative competence. Unless the statutory provision is declared unconstitutional, its implementation cannot be stopped. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Constitution of India, 1950 - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the State amendments made to the central law Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to allow the conduct of animal sports like Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing in these respective States. These amendments were passed by the States after the Supreme Court in 2014 banned jallikettu and similar activities in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. These laws cannot be construed as "colourable legislations" and that the State legislature had the legislative power to make these amendments as per Entry 17 to List III of the Seventh Schedule. These amendments do not go contrary to the ratio of the judgment in Nagaraja. These laws cure the defects pointed out by the judgment in Nagaraja. The effect of these laws is to minimise the pain and suffering caused to animals. The amendments, having received the assent of the President, cannot be faulted. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 299 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 11(6) and 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - Application for appointment of arbitrator - A contract entered into in the name of the President of India, does not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459

Electricity Act, 2003 - In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Electric Utilities have been directed in the facts of cases before us to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003 - The implication of the expression “as is where is” basis is that every intending bidder is put on notice that the seller does not undertake responsibility in respect of the property offered for sale with regard to any liability for the payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - For an application to be considered as a ‘reconnection’, the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 49 - A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 50 - The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 50 - The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 56 - The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Sections 50 and 181 - The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Bitumen cannot be treated as a ‘valuable article’ under Section 69A. For an ‘article’ to be ‘valuable’, even in small quantity it must be ‘worth a good price’ or ‘worth a great deal of money’, and it is not sufficient if it has some ‘value’. Considering the price of one kilogram of bitumen, ‘bitumen’ cannot be treated as a ‘valuable article’. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Principle of Ejusdem Generis - the preceding words in Section 69A - such as money, bullion, and jewellery- would suggest that the phrase ‘other valuable article’ would justify inclusion of only high value goods. The ownership of the goods did not pass to the assessee, who was a mere carrier of goods and whose possession of bitumen began as a bailee. Thus, the assessee could not be said to be the ‘owner’ of bitumen so as to attract Section 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Thief cannot be recognised as the owner of the property within the meaning of Section 69A. For Section 69A to apply, it is indispensable that the Assessing Officer must find that the articles/ goods enumerated and covered under Section 69A, are owned by the assessee. A person may own contraband or prohibited articles and still be within the embrace of Section 69A. However, without finding ownership, or in a case where it is obvious that someone else is the owner, a person who is found to be in illegal possession of goods cannot be said to be the owner under Section 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Jallikattu Law can't be termed arbitrary merely because bulls lack natural ability to run like horses. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - The Supreme Court has expressed its disagreement with the 2014 division bench judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors insofar as it held that Jallikattu is not a cultural practice in Tamil Nadu. As per the materials placed before the Court, Jallikattu is going in Tamil Nadu for at least the last one century and whether or not it as an integral part of Tamil culture could not have been decided by the Court. When the legislature has declared that Jallikattu is part of the cultural heritage of TN state, the judiciary cannot take a different view. Legislature is best suited to decide that. The preamble to the state amendment had stated that Jallikettu is a part of cultural heritage of the State. We will not disrupt the view of the legislature that it is part of the cultural heritage of the state. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - there is no precedent to show that the Constitution of India recognises fundamental rights for animals. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Railways Act, 1989 - Mere absence of a ticket on the injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 449

Railways Act, 1989 - Whenever any untoward incident occurs in the course of working of the railway, the Railway Administration is liable to compensate the passenger irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of railway administration. Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 449

Wakf Act, 1954; Sections 4 and 5 - Conducting survey is prerequisite before declaring property as wakf - In the absence of survey conducted under Section 4, the mere issuance of the notification under Section 5 of the Act would not constitute a valid wakf in respect of the suit land. (Para 32) Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454

NOMINAL INDEX

1. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452
2. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447
3. Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 458
4. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457
5. Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446
6. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451
7. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456
8. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459
9. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450
10. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453
11. Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 449
12. Pradhani Jani v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 455
13. Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 460
14. Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454
15. Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 448