SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Arbitration

Limitation period for arbitration - cause of action to appoint arbitrator commences from the “breaking point” between parties. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Limitation period for arbitration - mere negotiations between parties will not postpone the cause of action. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Bail

Accused cannot be denied bail on the sole ground that the co-accused has not surrendered. Sebil Elanjimpally v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Civil Law

Security furnished by a judgment debtor in the form of a rented shop belonging to a third party cannot be accepted. Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 473

Contempt

Supreme Court sentences NRI father to 6 months imprisonment, imposes Rs 25 lakhs fine violating directions to bring minor son to india. Meenal Bhargava v. Naveen Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Contract Law

No judicial review in commercial matters unless a case of arbitrariness, mala fide, bias or irrationality is made out. Tender / Contract - Courts not to needlessly interfere in contracts involving technical issues. The judges do not possess the necessary expertise to adjudicate technical issues beyond their domain. Restraint must be practiced in cases where the Courts are aware that their interference in technical commercial matters would incur loss to the Public Exchequer. Tata Motors Ltd. v. BrihanMumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467

The Court should not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. A writ court should refrain from imposing its decision over the employer with respect to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer, unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467

When the Court initiates fresh tender at a stage when the contract is underway, the same consumes time and incurs losses to the public exchequer. The financial burden / implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467

The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467

Corruption

Failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to an election petition. Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Criminal Law

‘Courts below failed to properly evaluate evidence’: Supreme Court acquits two convicts in 22 year old murder case. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Proposed accused has the right to be heard in revision filed against dismissal of petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465

Criminal Investigation – Voice Sample - Magistrate has the power to order the collection of a voice sample for the purpose of investigation. Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 463

'Numerous lapses in investigation': Supreme Court frees man awarded death penalty in case for rape & murder of 6 year old girl. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Criminal Trial

At the stage of hearing on the charges, the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and if no offence is made out, then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court. (Para 11) Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462

The High Court has not even referred to the evidence collected by Investigating Agency produced alongwith chargesheet in its entirety. Rather there is selective reference to the statements of some of the persons recorded during investigation. It shows that there was total non-application of mind. The High Court had exercised the jurisdiction in a manner which is not vested in it to scuttle the trial of a heinous crime. (Para 20) Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462

Electricity

'Governor cannot stultify a government like this": Supreme Court rebukes Delhi LG for delaying appointment of DERC chairperson. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Evidence Law

Forensic / Ballistic Report has not even been put to the accused, from whom the country made pistol was seized, while recording his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., therefore, in any event, it would have to be eschewed from consideration. (Para 32) Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Chance Witness - Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Delayed Disclosure - a mere chance witness, whose presence at the spot, at that hour, is not satisfactorily explained therefore, bearing in mind that he kept silent for unusually long i.e. for more than three and a half months, his testimony is not worthy of any credit. The courts below erred by placing reliance on his testimony. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Testimony of witnesses who made a delayed disclosure of the incriminating circumstances of which he was aware much earlier - If a witness professes to know about a gravely incriminating circumstance against a person accused of the offence of murder and the witness keeps silent for over two months regarding the said incriminating circumstance against the accused, his statement relating to the incriminating circumstance, in the absence of any cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Interpretation of Statues

For a subsequent order / provision / amendment passed to be considered a clarification to the original provision, it must not expand or alter the scope of the original provision and that the original must be sufficiently vague or ambiguous so as to require such clarification. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

While it was well established that a clarification or an explanation to clear any ambiguity or correct any glaring omissions in a statute would be applicable retrospectively, it had to consider the question of how such a clarification/ explanation to a statute could be identified and distinguished from a substantive amendment to a statute. A clarification must not have the effect of saddling any party with an unanticipated burden or withdrawing from any party an anticipated benefit. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Interpretation of Statues - Legal Principles - i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted. ii) In order for a subsequent order / provision / amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively. iii) An explanation / clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision. iv) Merely because a provision is described as a clarification / explanation, the Court is not bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Recruitment

Recruitment Rules - the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule. In the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List, is left to the wisdom of the State. However, the State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review. State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472

University

The subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 cannot be declared as a clarification and therefore be made applicable retrospectively. The said order has substantively modified the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 to the extent of stating that teachers who had already got the benefit of advance increments for having a Ph.D. degree, would not be eligible for advance increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade. The law provides that a clarification must not have the effect of saddling any party with an unanticipated burden or withdrawing from any party an anticipated benefit. However, the Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 has restricted the eligibility of lecturers for advance increments at the time of placement in the selection grade, only to those who do not have a Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment and subsequently acquire the same. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Merely because the subsequent Government Order has been described as a clarification / explanation or is said to have been issued following a clarification that was sought in that regard, the Court is not bound to accept that the said order is only clarificatory in nature. On an analysis of the true nature and purport of the subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001, it is not merely clarificatory, but is a substantial amendment which seeks to withdraw the benefit of two advance increments in favour of a certain category of lecturers. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - the cause of action to appoint an arbitrator would commence from the “Breaking Point” at which any reasonable party would abandon efforts for at arriving at a settlement and contemplate referral of the dispute for arbitration. “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose for the purpose of limitation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Entire history of the negotiation between the parties must be specifically pleaded and placed on record, in order to facilitate the Court to find out what was the “Breaking Point” for the purpose of limitation computation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - “Cause of action” to mean material facts that are necessary to be proved by the plaintiff to succeed in a suit; and it plays a necessary role in computation of limitation period for bringing an action. If a party simply delays sending a notice seeking reference under the Act 1996 because they are unclear of when the cause of action arose, the claim can become time-barred even before the party realises the same. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation - the limitation period of three years for filing such application would commence from the date when the cause of action arose. Subsequent negotiations between the parties, which take place after the cause of action has arisen, will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation computation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Negotiations may continue even for a period of ten years or twenty years after the cause of action had arisen. Mere negotiations will not postpone the “cause of action” for the purpose of limitation. The Legislature has prescribed a limit of three years for the enforcement of a claim and this statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Limitation Act, 1963; Article 137 - the Arbitration Act does not prescribe any time period for filing an application under Section 11(6) for appointment of Arbitrator. Thus, the limitation of three years provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to such proceedings. The time limit of three years would commence from the period when the right to apply accrues. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963; Article 137 - If an infringement of a right happens at a particular time, the whole cause of action will be said to have arisen then and there. In such a case, it is not open to a party to sit tight and not to file an application for settlement of dispute of his right, which had been infringed, within the time provided by the Limitation Act, and, allow his right to be extinguished by lapse of time, and thereafter, to wait for another cause of action and then file an application under Section 11 of the Act 1996 for establishment of his right which was not then alive, and, which had been long extinguished because, in such a case, such an application would mean an application for revival of a right, which had long been extinguished under the Act 1963 and is, therefore, dead for all purposes. Such proceedings would not be maintainable and would obviously be met by the plea of limitation under Article 137 of the Act 1963. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - Proposed accused has right to be heard in revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against dismissal of petition under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Supreme Court has sentenced a non-resident Indian to six months imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 25 lakhs for contempt of court, for failing to bring back his minor son to India in terms of the orders passed by the top court from time to time and the undertaking given by him before the court to this effect. The acts and omissions of the contemnor, amounted to both civil and criminal contempt, calling for a strict action against him. The power of the court to punish a person for contempt is unrestricted by the Act. Meenal Bhargava v. Naveen Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Electricity Act 2003; Section 84 (2) - Appointment of the Chairperson - The substantive part of sub-section (2) indicates that the State Government may appoint any person as the Chairperson from “amongst persons who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court”. However, in terms of the proviso, an appointment under the subsection has to be made only after consultation with the Chief Justice “of that High Court”. The expression “of that High Court” makes it abundantly clear that the consultation has to be made with the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the Judge or, as the case may be, the former Judge is drawn. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 66 - the remedy against third party is not available under Section 66 of IBC, and in such circumstances, it is for the Resolution Professional or the successful resolution applicant to take such civil remedies against third party for recovery of dues payable to corporate debtor, and the civil remedies which may be available in law are independent of the said Section. (Para 10) Glukrich Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 - Mere publication of a candidate’s name in the Additional List (waiting list) for the purpose of recruitment as a Primary School Teacher, will not create any right to be appointed in favour of such candidate. Entry 66 of the Rules, which talks about additional list, does not mandatorily obligate the State to make appointments. State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 and 201 - Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4, 25 - the case in hand is a quintessential case where to solve out a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected which warranted a strict scrutiny before basing a conviction thereupon. On putting the prosecution evidence to strict scrutiny and testing the same on the anvil of settled legal principles, the evidence is not confidence inspiring as to uphold the conviction of the accused. The courts below have failed to properly evaluate and test the evidence by applying the correct legal principles. In such circumstances, the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside. (Para 33) Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 and 201 - Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4, 25 - there was no disclosure in the FIR as to how the dead body was found in the forest - who had seen the deceased in the company of the two persons was not disclosed in the FIR - the prosecution made later improvements in the story and made deliberate attempt to multiply the witnesses - all these circumstances taken cumulatively create a doubt in our mind as to whether it is a quintessential case of a blind murder (i.e. taking place at a secluded place in the darkness of night where no one could witness the crime), therefore, to solve the case, while groping for witnesses, the prosecution story kept evolving, either on the basis of information received from time to time, or on guess work emanating from strong suspicion, or police suggestions. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376, 377, 302 and 201 - Rape & Murder of 6-year-old girl - Numerous lapses in investigation - the reasons why the investigation officers were changed time and again from PW 6 to PW 12 and then to PW 13, is surprising and unexplained. No reason stands given for having decided that there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 53A of CrPC. There is unexplained delay in sending the samples collected for analysis. A premises already searched was searched again, the reason for which is not borne from record. Lock panchnama is not prepared. No samples of blood and semen of the accused can be said to have been drawn by any medical or para medical staff, allegedly an additional sample is taken from the accused more than a month after the arrest. Alleged disclosure statement of the accused was never read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language. The accused was not residing alone at the place alleged to be his residence. What was the basis of the accused being a suspect at the first instance, remains a mystery. Persons who may have shed light on essential aspects went unexamined. Such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril. Thus, the Court set aside the conviction and sentences of death penalty and life imprisonment imposed on the accused and set him at liberty. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887; Section 17 - Security furnished by the judgment debtor in the form of a rented shop belonging to a third party, of which the surety was a tenant, cannot be accepted as a security in law. The proviso to Section 17 of the Act contemplates that the applicant seeking to set aside an exparte decree must either make a deposit of the amount in question or give security. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 582, the provision with respect to deposit can be dispensed with by the court. Thus, the applicant can, in other words, seek a dispensation with the requirement of deposit and can seek leave for furnishing such security as the court may direct. Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 473

Representation of the People Act, 1951; Sections 123, 83(1) (a) - Failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition. When allegations of corrupt practice are made against an elected representative in an election petition, the proceedings virtually become quasi-criminal. Further, the outcome of such a petition is very serious, which can oust a popularly elected representative of the people. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts concerning the ground of corrupt practice, must result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold itself. (Para 13) Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 3(1)(x) - Before subjecting an accused to a trial for alleged commission of offence, it is desirable that the caste related utterances are outlined either in the FIR or, atleast, in the chargesheet. The same would enable it to ascertain if a case is made out for an offence under the SC/ST Act before taking cognisance of the matter. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 473
2. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466
3. Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462
4. Glukrich Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464
5. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476
6. Meenal Bhargava v. Naveen Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 475
7. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461
8. Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 463
9. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469
10. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470
11. Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465
12. Sebil Elanjimpally v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 474
13. Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471
14. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468
15. State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472
16. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467