Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index [November 7 – 13, 2022]

Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissed applications challenging the denial of Permanent Commission (PC) in the Indian Navy observing that there was no gender bias or mala fides in the grant of PC - Whether the AFT could have adjudicated on the validity of the selection proceedings when relevant material was disclosed only to the AFT in a sealed cover? The failure to disclose relevant material has caused substantial prejudice to the appellants. This case exposes the danger of following a sealed cover procedure - AFT to reconsider the entire matter afresh. Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951

Army Act, 1950; Section 122 - For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence - In this case, a letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person to the concerned authority which showed that he was aware of the alleged offence - The date 13.08.2015 would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore the time had started running from the said date for the purpose of Section 122 - The contention that the date of aggrieved person's knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence should be construed as the date when the authority prima facie concluded after the Court of Inquiry that the offence was committed, cannot be accepted - The Convening Authority having directed the trial by General Court Martial vide order dated 22.11.2018, the same was clearly beyond three years and therefore barred under Section 122 of the Act. Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931

Basic Structure Doctrine - It is therefore, inaccurate to say that provisions that enable, exercise of power, would not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The enabling provision in question's basic premise, its potential to overbear the constitutional ethos, or overcome a particular value, would be in issue. The court's inquiry therefore, cannot stop at the threshold, when an enabling provision is enacted. Its potential for violating the basic structure of the Constitution is precisely the power it confers, on the legislature, or the executive. (Para 157) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Circumstantial Evidence - In order to sustain conviction, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused only and none else. The circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. [Para 33] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 1 proviso and Order V Rule 1(1) second proviso - Time limit for filing written statement not mandatory when the suit was instituted before the normal Civil Court and transferred to a Commercial Court after the expiry of 120 days. Raj Process Equipments and Systems v. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 928

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151, Order VII Rule 10 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ; Section 19, 31 - An independent suit filed by the borrower against the bank or financial institution cannot be transferred to be tried along with application under the RDB Act, as it is a matter of option of the defendant in the claim under the RDB Act - Since there is no such power, there is no question of transfer of the suit whether by consent or otherwise - Proceedings under the RDB Act will not be impeded in any manner by filing of a separate suit before the Civil Court - It is not open to a defendant, who may have taken recourse to the Civil Court, to seek a stay on the decision of the DRT awaiting the verdict of his suit before the Civil Court as it is a matter of his choice. (Para 49- 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Civil Courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred under statute either expressly or by necessary implication and such a bar is not to be readily inferred. The provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of a Civil Court requires strict interpretation and the Court would normally lean in favour of construction which would uphold the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. (Para 43) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 9 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Section 17, 18, 19 - Jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try a suit filed by a borrower against a Bank or Financial Institution is not ousted by virtue of the scheme of the RDB Act in relation to the proceedings for recovery of debt - There is no provision in the RDB Act by which the remedy of a civil suit by a defendant in a claim by the bank is ousted, but it is the matter of choice of that defendant. Such a defendant may file a counterclaim, or may be desirous of availing of the more strenuous procedure established under the Code, and that is a choice which he takes with the consequences thereof. (Para 45, 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible. (Para 29, 44) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 145,146 - Once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to an end - The interse rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court. Mohd. Abid v. Ravi Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 921

Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulation 92(2) - There is a distinction between the absence and the post fallen vacant. Regulation 92(2) shall be applicable only in a case of absence and not in a case where the post of Chairman and/or office bearer has fallen vacant. (Para 4.4) Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulations 117(2), 119(2) - Regulation 117(2) shall be applicable in a case where the elected member of the Regional Council has been disqualified on he being found guilty of any professional or other misconduct and awarded penalty of fine. Therefore, in case of a vacation of office as per Regulation 117(2), such post fallen vacant is required to be filled in by election by electing another person from amongst its members to hold the office for the remaining period of a year (Regulation 119(2)). (Para 4.4) Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 - The 103rd Constitution Amendment cannot be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by (1) permitting the State to make special provisions, including reservation, based on economic criteria (2) permitting the State to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided institutions (3) in excluding the SEBCs/OBCs/SCs/STs from the scope of EWS reservation. (Para 104) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; 10th Schedule - Anti Defection Law - Post- Poll alliance subject to certain conditions is permissible. Chandan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 947

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15(6) - Unaided private educational institutions would be bound under Article 15(6) to provide for EWS reservations. (Para 194) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - Grant of Remission - Governor, in the matter of remission of an appellant convicted under Section 302, was bound by the advice of the State Cabinet. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 173(b) - Supreme Court upholds decision of Allahabad High Court to disqualify Azam Khan's son for not meeting age criteria. Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 925

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Appeal against the High Court judgment which allowed the request for remission itself on the premise that it is covered by the policy - It was not within the domain of judicial review for the learned judge to have himself exercised the power of remission - Though we do not find the exercise of power in the impugned judgment in accordance with law, we would not like to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India insofar as now the respondent having been given the benefit of remission, it would not be appropriate to put him back in custody. State of Haryana v. Daya Nand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 948

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982; Regulation 114(4) - Calcutta High Court set aside election of office bearers of EIRC of ICSI allowing a writ petition filed by a person who did not contest the election - In view of Regulation 114(4) of the Regulations, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition challenging the validity of the election. Even otherwise, even as per Regulation 114(4), the election can be challenged by the candidate concerned - The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition challenging the election at the instance of the respondent no.1 who even did not contest the election of the office bearers. Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review - Disciplinary Proceedings - The power of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is extremely limited. It is circumscribed by the limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not of the merits of the decision itself. (Para 11) Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused. (Para 12) State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Mandamus - The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. (Para 10) State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PILs filed in the Jharkhand HC seeking probe against Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren - Appeal against HC order that held PILs maintainable - Allowed - We are not for a moment saying that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated, but for a High Court to take cognizance of the matter on these generalized submissions which do not even make prima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court - It was not proper for the High Court to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the Court with unclean hands. State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ Petition seeking directions for expeditious hearing of a petition which is already pending before the High Court - Dismissed - Ignorance of law is no defence - Such kind of petitions seem to be leading the litigant up the garden path. Nepal Das v. High Court of Calcutta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 946

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 - Constitution validity of EWS Quota upheld - Reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India - Exclusion of the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirements of non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination, does not violate Equality Code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. (Para 102) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 - The total and absolute exclusion of constitutionally recognised backward classes of citizens - and more acutely, SC and ST communities, is nothing but discrimination which reaches to the level of undermining, and destroying the equality code, and particularly the principle of nondiscrimination - The insertion of Article 15(6) and 16(6) is struck down, is held to be violative of the equality code, particularly the principle of nondiscrimination and non-exclusion which forms an inextricable part of the basic structure of the Constitution - While special provisions based on objective economic criteria (for the purpose of Article 15), is per se not violative of the basic structure the same is not true for Article 16, the goal of which is empowerment, through representation of the community. (Para 189-193) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 15, 16 - Reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens up to ten per cent. in addition to the existing reservations does not result in violation of any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India on account of breach of the ceiling limit of fifty per cent. because, that ceiling limit itself is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. (Para 102) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 243X and 243Y - Whether any proposal for change or modification in the methodology adopted for levy of property tax ought to have been initiated through the Finance Commission alone? If the Legislature itself has taken into account certain prevailing situation, which according to the Legislature is causing some prejudice to the financial health and condition of the municipalities and, therefore, the method of imposition of property tax ought to be changed, it cannot then be said that the matter must necessarily and ought to have emanated from the Finance Commission or that in the absence of such recommendations by the Finance Commission, no steps could have been taken by the Legislature. (Para 25-27) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 927

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Consumer Commission has power to issue directions for consequential relief if the terms of the contract are found to be unfair [Para 33 to 35] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Section 38(2)(a), 59(1) - The period of limitation for opposite party to file written version is 30 days which can be condoned up to 15 days only - The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period mentioned in the Statute. Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Kutumb Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 930

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Contempt petition filed by RIL alleging non compliance of directions issued to SEBI in Reliance Industries Ltd vs Securities and Exchange Board of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659 - Notice Issued to respondent - Merely because the stay application is pending in review petition cannot be a ground to grant stay by the respondent on its own and not to comply with the directions issued by this Court. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Vijayan A., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 950

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty for committing contempt of the Court. Mohan Chandra P. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 952

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Supreme Court issues show-cause notice for contempt of courts action against Advocate on Record for signing a petition with derogatory remarks against High Court. Mohan Chandra P. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 952

Contract Act, 1872 - Doctrine of Blue Pencil -The said doctrine strikes off the offending clause as void ab initio. An exclusion clause repugnant to the main contract ought to be effaced. [Para 22] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Criminal Investigation - Test Identification Parade - Threefold object of conducting TIP - Necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade -TIP to be held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused - Healthy ratio between suspects and non­suspects during a TIP - TIP is not just an empty formality. (Para 25 - 31) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Criminal Trial - Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021; Rule 4 - That some High Courts or governments of the States/ Union Territories have failed to comply with this court's order and are delayed in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice the right of an accused to receive this list of the statements, documents, material, etc. in the possession of the prosecution - To say that the judgment in Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510 in relation to this, and the right of the accused to receive the said list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted – would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one state, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another. P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 923

Criminal Trial - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless. (Para 29) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Death Penalty - It may be true that if the accused involved in the heinous crime go unpunished or are acquitted, a kind of agony and frustration may be caused to the society in general and to the family of the victim in particular, however the law does not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. No conviction should be based merely on the apprehension of indictment or condemnation over the decision rendered. Every case has to be decided by the Courts strictly on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any kind of outside moral pressures. Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Death Penalty - Supreme Court acquits three persons who were sentenced to death by the trial court and the High Court for rape and murder of a 19-year old girl- Supreme Court notes lapses in investigation and trial - No Test Identification of accused done- Accused no identified during trial by witnesses- many witnesses no cross-examined- recoveries not proved. [Paras 32-34] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Andhra Pradesh) - Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un­Aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (Andhra Pradesh); Rule 4 - Government order issued by State of Andhra Pradesh that enhanced the tuition fee of Private Medical Colleges by seven times, to Rs. 24 lakhs per annum - State Governnment could not have enhanced the fee during the review pending with the AFRC. To enhance the fee unilaterally would be contrary to the objects and purpose of the 1983 Act as well as the 2006 Rules, 2006 and the decision in P.A. Inamdar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (2005) 6 SCC 537. (Para 3.1, 5) Narayana Medical College v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 165 - Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth. The Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but issupposed to actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion. [Para 34] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 9 - The evidence of a TIP is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial. Therefore, TIPs, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained. (Para 26) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 (Jharkhand); Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5 , 6A - Jharkhand HC held that Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view of Rule 6-A and therefore even though the Rules have not been followed that really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain a PIL, since the nature of allegations in the PIL was of a serious nature - Disapproving this view, the Supreme Court held: This reasoning, in our view, is in teeth of the directions given in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal ((2010) 3 SCC 402), as well as a clear violation of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, primarily Rule 4-B. - The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause. (Para 14-16) State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924

High Court Rules (Bombay); Chapter XXX; Rule 3(1) Proviso - Once an application was preferred by any of the parties that a review may be heard by the Judge who had decided the matter and had passed the order from which the review arose, the matter ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than order being passed on the judicial side. The proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules confers this power on the Chief Justice to assign a particular matter to a single Judge for hearing of the review application where the single Judge concerned was not available for the time being by reason of being on leave or otherwise as aforesaid i.e. where he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench. The Chief Justice, is the master of roster and is conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules. Suresh G. Ramnani v. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 939

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 220(2A) - Merely raising the dispute before any authority cannot be a ground not to levy the interest and/or waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) - Otherwise each and every assessee may raise a dispute and thereafter may contend that as the assessee was bona fidely litigating and therefore no interest shall be leviable - Under Section 220(2) of the Act, the levy of simple interest on non-payment of the tax @ 1% p.a. is, as such, mandatory. Pioneer Overseas Corporation USA v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 944

Insurance Act 1938 - Duty of insurer to disclose exclusion clause - When an exclusion clause is introduced making the contract unenforceable on the date on which it is executed, much to the knowledge of the insurer, non-disclosure and a failure to furnish a copy of the said contract by following the procedure required by statute, would make the said clause redundant and non-existent. [Para 15] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Insurance Act, 1938 - An exclusion clause in a contract of insurance has to be interpreted differently. Not only the onus but also the burden lies with the insurer when reliance is made on such a clause. This is for the reason that insurance contracts are special contracts premised on the notion of good faith. It is not a leverage or a safeguard for the insurer, but is meant to be pressed into service on a contingency, being a contract of speculation. An insurance contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all material facts by both parties. [Para 11] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Insurance Act, 1938 - Any non-compliance of IRDA Regulations, obviously would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the offending clause, be it an exclusion clause, cannot be pressed into service by the insurer against the insured as he may not be in knowhow of the same. [Para 21] Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Judges Appointment - Delays in appointment will discourage competent lawyers in opting for judgeship - With the expanding opportunities to prominent lawyers, it is as it is a challenge to persuade persons of eminence to be invited to the Bench. On top of that if the process takes ages, there is a further discouragement to them to accept the invitation and this is undoubtedly weighing with the members of the Bar in accepting the invitation to adorn the Bench-unless the Bench is adorned by competent lawyers very concept of Rule of Law and Justice suffers. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Appointment - Supreme Court issues notice to the Secretary (Justice) and the current Additional Secretary (Administration and Appointment) over delays in clearing collegium reiterations. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Appointments - Once the Government has expressed its reservation and that has been dealt with by the Collegium, post second reiteration, only the appointment has to take place. Thus, keeping the names pending is something not acceptable. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Appointments - Supreme Court criticises Centre keeping the recommendations pending - We find the method of keeping the names on hold whether duly recommended or reiterated is becoming some sort of a device to compel these persons to withdraw their names as has happened. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Judicial Appointments - Supreme Court makes critical remarks against the Union Government over delay in clearing names reiterated by the Collegium. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value. S. Shankaraiah v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 934

Letter of Credit - A letter of credit is independent of and unqualified by the contract of sale or underlying transactions. Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. v. UPS Freight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 938

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - If the liability of the Insurance Company is decided and they are held not to be liable, ordinarily, there shall be no direction to "pay and recover" - In all cases such order of "pay and recover" would not arise when the Insurance Company is not liable but would, in the facts and circumstances, be considered by this Court to meet the ends of justice. Balu Krishna Chavan v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 932

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (Mumbai); Section 154 - Capital Value Rules - Rule 20 of the Capital Value Rules of 2010 and 2015 empower the Commissioner to consider the capability of the open land of utilizing more than 1 floor space index (FSI) or any transfer of development right (TDR), would go well beyond the permissible scope delineated by the provisions of Section 154 of the MMC Act - Rule 20 of the Capital Value Rules of 2010 and the Capital Value Rules of 2015 would be ultra vires the provisions of sub­Sections (1A) and (1B) of Section 154 of the MMC Act - There being no empowerment to compute and/or levy property tax with retrospective effect by the statute itself, the rule making power, in any view of the matter, could not have created a liability pertaining to the period well before the Rules came into effect. (Para 38-39) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 927

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (Mumbai); Section 154 - Imposition of property tax on the capital value - For the purpose of determining capital value, only the present physical attributes and status of the land and building can be considered and not the future prospects of the land - Statutory provisions do not contemplate any likelihood of exploitation of capacity in future - The capital value of the land and building must be based on situation "in presenti" - In projects which are in progress, the value addition to the property would be ongoing feature. (Para 36-40) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 927

National Council for Teachers Education Regulations, 2014; Rule 7(5) - Recognition of B.Ed Colleges - State is well within its right to make suitable recommendations - When the State Government is required to provide detailed reasons against grant of recognition with necessary statistics, it includes the need and/or requirement. Therefore, the State Government was well within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favour of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the need of annually 2500 teachers approximately 13000 students would be passing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students, there will be unemployment - The need of the new colleges looking to the requirement can be said to be a relevant consideration and a decision not to recommend further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges on the need basis cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Para 8) State of Uttarakhand v. Nalanda College of Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 943

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Kerala); Section 102(1)(ca) - The failure to make a true disclosure in Form 2A, regarding the past conviction, will certainly come within the meaning of the word 'fake', mentioned in Section 102 (1)(ca) - A person having criminal antecedents, poses himself to be one without any such antecedent, when he fails to make a true disclosure. In law, he passes off or comes out as a person without any criminal antecedent. (Para 33) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Kerala); Section 52(1A) - The words "involvement in a criminal case at the time of filing of the nomination" would only mean (i) cases where a criminal complaint is pending investigation/trial; (ii) cases where the conviction and/or sentence is current at the time of filing of the nomination; and (iii) cases where the conviction is the subject matter of any appeal or revision pending at the time of the nomination. (Para 37) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Kerala); Section 52(1A) and 102(1) - Police Act, 1960 (Kerala); Sections 38 and 52 - The failure of the elected candidate to disclose (in nomination form) his conviction for an offence under the Kerala Police Act for holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat office, cannot be taken as a ground for declaring an election void. (Para 46) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Police Act, 1960 (Kerala) - While offences under the Indian Penal Code or under special enactments such as Prevention of Corruption Act, Arms Act and so on and so forth are substantive offences, the commission of which may make a person a criminal, an offence under certain enactments such as Kerala Police Act are not substantive offences - Protest is a tool in the hands of the civil society and police action is a tool in the hands of the Establishment. All State enactments such as Kerala Police Act, Madras Police Act etc., are aimed at better regulation of the police force and they do not create substantive offences. This is why these Acts themselves empower the police to issue necessary directions for the maintenance of law and order and the violation of any of those directions is made a punishable offence under these Acts - Kerala Police Act, 1960 is actually the successor legislation of certain police enactments of the colonial era, whose object was to scuttle the democratic aspirations of the indigenous population. (Para 45-47) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Practice and Procedure - Sealed Cover Procedure - The disclosure of relevant material to the adjudicating authority in a sealed cover sets a dangerous precedent and makes the process of adjudication vague and opaque - All material which is relied upon by either party in the course of a judicial proceeding must be disclosed - The measure of non - disclosure of sensitive information in exceptional circumstances must be proportionate to the purpose that the non-disclosure seeks to serve. The exceptions should not, however, become the norm. (Para 27, 28) Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - When the accused stand discharged of the scheduled offence, there could arise no question of they being prosecuted for illegal gain of property as a result of the criminal activity relating to the alleged scheduled offence. Indrani Patnaik v. Enforcement Directorate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 920

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case - Supreme Court orders premature release of all 6 convicts. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Service Law - Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 (Uttar Pradesh) - Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules - When the 1992 Rules specifically emphasized that, where in any year of recruitment, appointments were to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, regular appointments could not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was to be prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules - The seniority list which provided a higher seniority to the direct recruits is not sustainable in law. (Para 25) Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 953

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Specific Performance Suit - There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice. The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same. (Para 4.1) V.S. Ramakrishnan v. P.M. Muhammed Ali, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 935

Stamp Act, 1899 (West Bengal amendment); Section 47A - Objective of amendment - In case of under valuation of property, an aspect not uncommon in our country, where consideration may be passing through two modes – one the declared 22 price and the other undeclared component, the State should not be deprived of the revenue. Such transactions do not reflect the correct price in the document as something more has been paid through a different method. The objective is to take care of such a scenario so that the State revenue is not affected and the price actually obtainable in a free market should be capable of being stamped. If one may say, it is, in fact, a reflection on the manner in which the transfer of an immovable property takes place as the price obtainable in a transparent manner would be different. (Para 23) Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 942

Stamp Act, 1899 (West Bengal amendment); Section 47A - Public auction monitored by the court, the discretion would not be available to the Registering Authority under Section 47A - Public auction carried out through court process/receiver as that is the most transparent manner of obtaining the correct market value of the property - Registering Officer cannot have any reason to believe that the market value of the property was not duly set forth - Independent determination by a Registering Officer would not apply to a court sale but to a private transaction. (Para 22-31) Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 942

Stamp Act, 1899 (West Bengal amendment); Section 47A - The "reason to believe" of a Registering Officer has to be based on ground realities and not some whimsical determination. (Para 29) Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 942

Tenancy - In a revision / appeal preferred by the tenant, who has suffered an eviction decree, the appellate / revisional court while staying the eviction decree can direct the tenant to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the tenancy premises upon the contractual rate of rent and such compensation for use and occupation of the premises would be at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. Sumer Corporation v. Vijay Anant Gangan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 936

UGC Regulations 2018 - Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 - Vice Chancellor Appointment - Appeal against Uttarakhand High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandar as Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University - Dismissed - (1) no advertisement was issued before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor (2) His name was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (3) His selection was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and (4) he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee - Even while making the appointment of the first ViceChancellor of the University, the procedure required for selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye- Appellant might have a very good/bright academic career, however it cannot be said that he was the most meritorious person as his case was not compared with other meritorious persons - The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University is held to be illegal and de hors the statutory requirements under Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940

UGC Regulations 2018 - The post of ViceChancellor of the University is a very important post and therefore the most meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University from and amongst the other eligible meritorious candidates out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee - The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be the persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges - While preparing the panel, the Search Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence etc. and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The reason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is compared with other eligible meritorious candidates who were part of the panel recommended by the Search Committee. (Para 12, 17) Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940

UGC Regulations 2018 - Where there is a conflict between the State University Act and the UGC Regulations, 2018 to the extent State legislation is repugnant, the UGC Regulations, 2018 shall prevail. (Para 16) Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 949
2. Amit Singh v. Ravindra Nath Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 953
3. Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Kutumb Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 930
4. Balu Krishna Chavan v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 932
5. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941
6. Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. v. UPS Freight Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 938
7. Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951
8. Chandan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 947
9. Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931
10. Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955
11. Indrani Patnaik v. Enforcement Directorate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 920
12. Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Biman Debnath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 945
13. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922
14. Mohan Chandra P. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 952
15. Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan v. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 925
16. Mohd. Abid v. Ravi Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 921
17. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 927
18. Narayana Medical College v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929
19. Nepal Das v. High Court of Calcutta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 946
20. P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 923
21. Pioneer Overseas Corporation USA v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 944
22. Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940
23. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954
24. Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926
25. Raj Process Equipments and Systems v. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 928
26. Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933
27. Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 942
28. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Vijayan A., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 950
29. S. Shankaraiah v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 934
30. State of Haryana v. Daya Nand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 948
31. State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924
32. State of Uttarakhand v. Nalanda College of Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 943
33. Sumer Corporation v. Vijay Anant Gangan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 936
34. Suresh G. Ramnani v. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 939
35. Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 937
36. V.S. Ramakrishnan v. P.M. Muhammed Ali, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 935