SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Arbitration

12 month’s time limit under Section 29A Arbitration Act not applicable to international commercial arbitration. TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Bail

Process of criminal law not for money recovery; Bail can be granted irrespective of payment of money involved. Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail / suspension of sentence. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Cheque

Section 138 NI Act - Accused relies on income tax returns to show complainant did not have financial capacity; Supreme Court affirms acquittal. Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Cinema

Cinema theatres can prohibit viewers from bringing food articles from outside. K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Cinema Theatres- Supreme Court upholds the right of cinema theatres and multiplexes to prohibit the taking of food and beverages from outside. K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Right of cinema theatres to prohibit outside food - The condition of entry is imposed as a direct result of the exercise of the right of cinema owners to carry on a business or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The commercial logic of prohibiting movie goers from carrying their own food to the cinema hall is to stimulate and boost a vital aspect of the business – the sale of food and beverages. If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt. While movie goers may have no choice but to sign on the proverbial dotted line (and thereby not carry any food of their own into the theatre) in order to enter the cinema hall and watch a movie of their choice, this does not by itself render the condition of entry unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. (Para 31) K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Restriction on bringing food and beverages in theatres from outside is not unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. (Para 30) - Whether or not to watch a movie is entirely within the choice of viewers. If viewers seek to enter a cinema hall, they must abide by the terms and conditions subject to which entry is granted. Having reserved the right of admission, it is open to theatre owners to determine whether food from outside the precincts of the cinema hall should be permitted to be carried inside (Para 27) K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Coal

State government can be ‘person interested’ in getting compensation under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Criminal Law

Chargesheets not 'public documents', Can't direct investigating agencies to upload them on websites. Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Chargesheets - Supreme Court refuses to direct that chargesheets filed by investigating agencies should be uploaded on a public website for public access- Court says that the directions in Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India (2016) 9 SCC 473 regarding uploading of FIR cannot be extended to chargesheets - Court directed the copies of the FIRs to be published within 24 hours on the police websites or on the websites of the State Government, looking to the interest of the accused and so that innocent accused are not harassed and they are able to get the relief from the competent court and they are not taken by surprise. Therefore, the directions issued by this Court are in favour of the accused, which cannot be stretch to the public at large so far as the chargesheets are concerned. (Para 4.1) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Default bail can be cancelled on merits after presentation of chargesheet. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

View that default bail cannot be cancelled on merits will reward lethargic investigation. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Evidence Law

Section 27 Evidence Act - Recovery cannot be relied upon when the statement of the accused is not recorded. Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Last Seen Theory - Last­ seen theory comes into play where the time­gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. If the gap between the time of last seen and the deceased found dead is long, then the possibility of other person coming in between cannot be ruled out - Solely on the basis of last seen theory, the conviction could not have been recorded. (Para 16, 17, 29) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Circumstantial Evidence - Golden principles with regard to conviction in a case which rests entirely on circumstantial evidence - It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict the accused - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved" - The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved - There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 9-10) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Standard of proof - Standard of proof in criminal proceedings differs with that in civil proceedings - Adjudication in civil matters is based on preponderance of probabilities whereas adjudication in criminal cases is based on the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent and the guilt of the accused should be proved to the hilt and the proof should be beyond all reasonable doubt. (Para 29-30) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

'Last seen' circumstance cannot be the sole basis for conviction: Supreme Court acquits murder accused. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Last Seen Doctrine - The “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance. (Para 23) Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Circumstantial Evidence- The prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such 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 and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, 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 - These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest. (Para 21) Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Family Pension

Child adopted by widow after death of govt. employee not entitled to family pension. Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Family Pension - Family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to extend to them some succour. (Para 12) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Income Tax

Income Tax Act - For block assessment, normals procedure not applicable; Interest can be levied without sec 158bc notice. K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Interpretation of Statute

The provisions of the statute are to be read as they are. Nothing to be added and or taken away. Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Interpretation of Statutes - In construing a word in a statute, caution has to be exercised in adopting a meaning ascribed to that word or concept in another statute. (Para 15) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Labour Law

The ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation so that social security can be given to employees. ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Land Law

Sec 24(2) RFCTLARR Act - Benefit of lapse not available if delay in taking possession was due to pending litigation. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Legal Maxims

Nocitur a Sociis - the meaning of a phrase must be construed having regard to the words immediately surrounding it. (Para 12.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Precedent

Judicial discipline also requires that the judgment/decision of this Court should be considered and read thoroughly. (Para 5.1) Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Service Law

Punishment imposed by disciplinary authority can be interfered with only if it is 'strikingly disproportionate'. Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Rajasthan Non-governmental Educational Institutions Act - Prior approval of director of education required to remove employee. Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Service Law - Joining the service of a disciplined force like CISF after suppressing criminal cases is a grave misconduct - Removal from service justified. (Para 9, 13) Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44

Service Law - Power of judicial review exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring "that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court -When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with. (Para 10) Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44

A person cannot be deemed to be in service when the first dismissal order is in force. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42

Service Law - SBI Officers Service Rules - When the first dismissal order against a person in service is in force, irrespective of all pending litigations or his age of superannuation, he cannot be deemed to be continuing in service. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42

Difference in pay-scale based on academic qualifications is valid even if the nature of work is the same. Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35

Wikipedia

'Wikipedia not completely dependable': Supreme Court cautions Courts and adjudicating authorities. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Wikipedia - Adjudicating authorities especially Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) extensively referred to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their conclusion - While we expressly acknowledge the utility of these platforms which provide free access to knowledge across the globe, but we must also sound a note of caution against using such sources for legal dispute resolution - These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd­sourced and user­generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information - The courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources. (Para 14) Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Words and Phrases

“In relation to” - The use of the phrase “in relation to” in statutes is with a view to bring one person or thing into association or connection with another person or thing. The direct or indirect nature of such association or connection depends on the context. (Para 11.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

ACT WISE INDEX

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 29A - Post 2019 amendment, the time limit of twelve months as prescribed in Section 29A is applicable to only domestic arbitrations and the twelve-month period is only directory in nature for an international commercial arbitration - Arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavor to complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date of competition of pleadings and are not bound to abide by the time limit prescribed for domestic arbitrations. (Para 25-29) TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 29A - Section 29A(1), as amended, is remedial in nature, it should be applicable to all pending arbitral proceedings as on the effective date i.e., 30 August 2019 - The amendment is remedial in that it carves out international commercial arbitrations from the rigour of the timeline of six months. (Para 34) TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - A case where a child is born to the deceased government servant after his death has to be contrasted with a case where a child is adopted by the widow of a government servant after his death. The former category of heirs are covered under the definition of family since such a child would be a posthumous child of the deceased government servant. (Para 14) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Sections 8 and 12 - Family Pension - A son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, could not be included within the definition of ‘family’ - Rights and entitlements of an adopted son of a Hindu widow, as available in Hindu Law, as against his adoptive family, cannot axiomatically be held to be available to such adopted son, as against the government, in a case specifically governed by extant pension rules. (Para 10-12) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - The phrase “in relation to a government servant” would indicate that the categories of persons listed thereunder, such as wife, husband, judicially separated wife or husband, son or unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, adopted son or daughter, etc. are sought to be brought into association with the deceased government servant. The context requires that association or connection of such persons with the deceased government servant must be direct and not remote. The said Rule requires that the family member must have a close nexus with the deceased government servant, and must have been dependent on him during his lifetime. (Para 11.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines - Portable - Weight cannot be the sole factor to determine the factum of portability. Instead, the essential ingredients to logically establish whether an ADP is ‘portable’ are (1) their ability to be carried around easily which includes all aspects such as weight and their dimensions- In appropriate cases, this assessment would also take into consideration the necessary accessories which are required for safe and efficient usage such as mounted stands or any power adapters (1) the ADP must be suitable for daily transit of a consumer and would include aspects such as durability to withstand frequent commute and damage protection - The Concerned Goods are not portable for the reasons (1) the diagonal dimension of the Concerned Goods being minimum of the length of 18.5 inches and the same needs to be transported along with the power cable as well as the applicable stand in most cases if it is to be mounted and (2) there being no protective case designed by the markets for daily transport for these Concerned Goods. Such requirements make the Concerned Goods unable to be carried around easily during daily transit. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Since the customs authorities wanted to classify the goods differently, the burden of proof to showcase the same was on them. (Para 23) Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949; Section 9, 10 - The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF - Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination. (Para 6) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 ; Section 2(d), 11 - The State Government being the original owner can be said to be deemed lessor - The State Government can be said to be the ‘person interested’ in getting the compensation. (Para 5) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957; Section 18(a) - The compensation/rental payable with respect to the lands by the lessee/deemed lessee is altogether different than the royalty. Royalty is for extraction of minerals in the lands in question - The amount of royalty cannot be mixed with the compensation/loss caused to the State Government due to loss of land and surface land rent as the State Government is entitled for the adequate compensation. (Para 5.1, 6) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 173, 207 - Direction to publicly upload chargesheets against the scheme of Cr.P.C. - If all the chargesheets and relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency. Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments. (Para 4.5) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Default bail can be cancelled on merits - there is no absolute bar that once a person is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail cannot be cancelled on merits and his bail can be cancelled on other general grounds like tampering with the evidence/witnesses; not cooperating with the investigating agency and/or not cooperating with the concerned Trial Court etc. [Para 11] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - the bail so granted is not on merits - when an accused is released on default bail they are released on furnishing the bail bond by them on the failure of the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file the chargesheet within the stipulated time mentioned therein - the object and purpose of proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is to impress upon the need for expeditious investigation within the prescribed time limit and to prevent laxity - the object is to inculcate a sense of its urgency and on default the Magistrate shall release the accused if he is ready and does furnish bail - it cannot be said that order of release on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an order on merits. [Para 8.1] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - deemed to be released under provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C., which includes Section 437 and 439 also - deeming fiction under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be interpreted to the length of converting the order of default bail, which is not on merits as if passed on merits. [Para 8.1] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - the merits brought out in the chargesheet and attending circumstances are relevant, as the bail was granted due to default of the investigating officer without Court's adverting to the merits but strong grounds are necessary to cancel the bail and mere filing of the chargesheet itself is not sufficient. [Para 9.2, 9.4, 9.7] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - Order granting bail shall be deemed to be under Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. and that order can be cancelled when a case for cancellation is made out under Section 437(5) or 439(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 9.6, 9.7] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - In a case where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and thereafter on filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime and considering the grounds set out in Sections 437(5) and Section 439(2), his bail can be cancelled on merits and the Courts are not precluded from considering the application for cancelation of the bail on merits. However, mere filing of the chargesheet is not enough, but as observed and held hereinabove, on the basis of the chargesheet, a strong case is to be made out that the accused has committed non-bailable crime and he deserves to be in custody. [Para 13] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - To hold that default bail cannot be cancelled on merits will be giving premium to lethargic investigation-In a given case, even if the accused has committed a very serious offence, may be under the NDPS or even committed murder(s), still however, he manages through a convenient investigating officer and he manages not to file the chargesheet within the prescribed time limit mentioned under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and got released on default bail, it may lead to giving a premium to illegality and/or dishonesty- Such an interpretation frustrates the course of justice. [Para 12] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited - Unless the High Court found that the appreciation of the evidence is perverse, it could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. (Para 21) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 307,323 and 341 IPC - High Court suspended the sentence, but imposed strict conditions of deposit of fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each - Waiving these conditions, the Supreme Court observed: Excessive conditions imposed on the appellant, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail - Can the Appellant, for not being able to comply with the excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - 439 - The process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail - The question as to whether pre-arrest bail, or for that matter regular bail, in a given case is to be granted or not is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations. The concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment. (Para 10) Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437-439, 389 - Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of sentence - Conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail. (Para 9-16) Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Ordinarily, there is no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment. (Para 11) Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226, 227 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate - Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review - Even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. (Para 6-7) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation and should be interpreted in such a manner so that social security can be given to the employees. (Para 6, 6.1) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 1 (6) - Prior to insertion of Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act, only those establishments/factories engaging more than 20 employees were governed by the ESI Act. However, thereafter, Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act has been inserted on 20.10.1989, and after 20.10.1989 there is a radical change and under the amended provision a factory or establishment to which ESI Act applies would be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act. Therefore, on and after 20.10.1989, irrespective of number of persons employed a factory or an establishment shall be governed by the ESI Act. (Para 7) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 1 (6) - Sub-section (6) of Section 1 shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 and the ESI Act shall be applicable irrespective of the number of persons employed or notwithstanding that the number of persons employed at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act - Only in case of demand notice for the period prior to inserting Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the Act, it can be said that the same provision has been applied retrospectively. (Para 7) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, 76 - Copy of the chargesheet along with the necessary documents cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act.-As per Section 75 of the Evidence Act all other documents other than the documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act are all private documents. Therefore, the chargesheet / documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced. (Para 5) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - The law expects the IO to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27. (Para 25-26) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - There is no statement of accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - The prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused - Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires that the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the said fact. The information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery. (Para 20 -26) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 - (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence and (2) he must also be in police custody - The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence. (Para 31-33) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Sections 8 and 12 - On adoption by a widow, the adopted son or daughter is deemed to be a member of the family of the deceased husband of the widow - Referred to Sawan Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761 and Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343 - The provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956 determine the rights of a son adopted by a Hindu widow only vis-à-vis his adoptive family. (Para 9-10) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Income Tax Act 1961 - Chapter XIVB is a complete code in itself providing for self-contained machinery for assessment of undisclosed income for the block period of 10 years or 6 years as the case may be- for assessment of undisclosed income for the block period, the normal assessment proceedings under Section 140 of the Income Tax Act would not be applicable. (Para 10.6) K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Income Tax Act 1961 - Revenue justified in levying interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act for late filing of the return for the block period even in absence of any notice under Section 158BC of the Act and for the period prior to 01.06.1999. (Paras 10.3, 10.7) K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 139 - The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities - once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the N.I. Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability - The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities - To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence - Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. Referred to Baslingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 (Para 12-20) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Rajasthan); Section 18 - Even in case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso to Section 18 - In Section 18, there is no distinction between the termination, removal, or reduction in rank after the disciplinary proceedings/enquiry or even without disciplinary proceedings/enquiry. (Para 5-6) Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48

Penal Code, 1869; Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction in a murder case - Allowed - Conviction set aside - The time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of the accused on 09-10-1999 and the probable time of his death, based on the post mortem report, which was conducted two days later, but was silent about the probable time of death, though it stated that death occurred approximately two days before the post mortem, is not narrow. Given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants is not justified. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Right to Information Act 2005 - Copies of the chargesheet and the relevant documents along with the charge-sheet do not fall within Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. (Para 6) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Service Law - Educational qualification can be a ground for different pay scale even if the nature of duties are the same - Pay scale difference in the posts of Nursing Assistant and Staff Nurse in Border Security Force upheld - Nature of work may be more or less the same but the scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. (Paras 4.4, 5) Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47
2. Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50
3. ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 53
4. Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44
5. Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48
6. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36
7. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45
8. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43
9. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41
10. K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38
11. K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54
12. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51
13. Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46
14. Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52
15. Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40
16. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42
17. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
18. TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39
19. Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49
20. Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35