Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise March 27 To April 3, 2022

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - When two or more Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement, the parties might, by agreement, decide to refer all disputes to any one Court to the exclusion of all other Courts, which might otherwise have had jurisdiction to decide the disputes. The parties cannot, however, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a Court which inherently lacked jurisdiction. (Para 47) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Only if the agreement of the parties was construed to provide for seat/place of arbitration in India, would Part-I of the 1996 Act be applicable. If the seat/place were outside India, Part-I would not apply, even though the venue of a few sittings may have been in India, or the cause of action may have arisen in India. (Para 36) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seat and Venue - Sittings at various places are relatable to venue. It cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration, which has a different connotation. (Para 44, 45) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Special leave petition against an order of the Calcutta High Court, allowing an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator - Allowed - Calcutta High Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) and 2(1)(e) - An application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 and 11(6) - Section 42 cannot possibly have any application to an application under Section 11(6), which necessarily has to be made before a High Court, unless the earlier application was also made in a High Court. (Para 32) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 - The Section has obviously been enacted to prevent the parties from being dragged into proceedings in different Courts, when more than one Court has jurisdiction. Where with respect to any arbitration agreement, any application under Part I of the A&C Act has been made in a Court, that Court alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement, and the arbitral proceedings, would have to be made in that Court and in no other Court, unless, of course, the Court in which the first application had been instituted, inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain that application. The Section which starts with a non obstante clause, is binding irrespective of any other law for the time being in force, and irrespective of any other provision in Part I of the A&C Act. (Para 31) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 144 - Appeal against Division Bench direction that the State shall be at liberty to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners - Dismissed - By applying Section 144 CPC also, the amount paid pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been set aside by the Division Bench is required to be refunded/returned by the original writ petitioners. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security and the appellant had no right to encash it - In essence, the suit attempts to frustrate the possibility of the appellant initiating action under the provision of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque - Such reliefs are barred by law - Revisional court was just in allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464 - Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Mere non-framing of a charge under Section 149 on face of charges framed against appellant would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to them - Mere defect in language, or in narration or in the form of charge would not render conviction unsustainable, provided the accused is not prejudiced thereby - If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned. [Referred to Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 546] (Para 7) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Constitution of India, 1950 - Permissibility of sub-classification amongst backward classes as has been done in the 2021 Act cannot be contested. Reasonableness of sub-classification is a separate question. (Para 33) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021 declared unconstitutional - Upheld the Madras High Court judgment holding that there is no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs, and therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16. (Para 74) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The conclusion of the High Court that determining the extent of reservation amongst the 'Backward Classes of citizens' can be done only by amending the 1994 Act in view of Article 31-B is unsustainable - State Legislature did not lack competence to enact a legislation for determining the extent of reservation amongst the MBCs and DNCs. (Para 46) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - There is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act. (Para 71) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court has committed an error in holding that the 2021 Act is violative of Article 342-A. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950 - The State's competence to enact the 2021 Act with the Governor's assent cannot be faulted with nor can the State be compelled by the courts to reserve the 2021 Act for assent of the President. (Para 51) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - While caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the State Government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. (Para 54) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 16 - Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial. (Para 71-72) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - No express prohibition stems from Article 31-B on the powers of the State Legislature to legislate on matters incidental to statutes placed within the Ninth Schedule - State has the power to amend or repeal a statute which has been placed under the Ninth Schedule - Any amendment made to a statute placed under the Ninth Schedule does not get protection under Article 31-B, unless the said amendment is also included in the Ninth Schedule. (Para 44) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31B - Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 - Placing of the 1994 Act under the Ninth Schedule cannot operate as a hurdle for the State to enact legislations on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act. Legislative competence of the State Legislature can only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and Article 31-B does not stipulate any such express prohibition on the legislative powers of the State. (Para 75) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 338B - The requirement of consultation with an expert constitutional body is indeed mandatory and it would be fatal to disregard the provision - Article 338- B(9) does not stop the State from enacting a legislation in furtherance of a major policy matter but states that the State Government shall consult the Commission on such matters - The consequence of disregarding a mandatory consultation provision would normally render the legislation void as it is in breach of an obligatory requirement to consult an expert constitutional body. (Para 75-76) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 - What the 102nd Amendment prohibits the State from undertaking is identifying a caste as SEBC or including or excluding a community from the list notified by the President - Determining the extent of reservation for a community amongst the list of Most Backward Classes does not amount to identification. (Para 31) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 - The 105th Amendment Act cannot be said to be a validating amendment- Prospective in operation - Identifying certain communities which are to be deemed as SEBCs for the purposes of the Central Government and the States, respectively, cannot be said to be a matter of procedure. The procedural aspect of the 102nd Amendment Act and the 105th Amendment Act is only the manner of publication of the lists of SEBCs, whereas the substantive element of the said amendments is identifying and recognising certain communities as SEBCs. (Para 29) Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Contract Act, 1872 - Abandonment - The refusal of a contractor to continue to execute the work, unless the reciprocal promises are performed by the other party, cannot be termed as abandonment of contract. A refusal by one party to a contract, may entitle the other party either to sue for breach or to rescind the contract and sue on a quantum meruit for the work already done. (Para 22) Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Member Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331

Contract Act, 1872 - Abandonment - Whenever a material alteration takes place in the terms of the original contract, on account of any act of omission or commission on the part of one of the parties to the contract, it is open to the other party not to perform the original contract. This will not amount to abandonment. Moreover, abandonment is normally understood, in the context of a right and not in the context of a liability or obligation. A party to a contract may abandon his rights under the contract leading to a plea of waiver by the other party, but there is no question of abandoning an obligation. (Para 19) Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Member Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There is no absolute proposition of law that in a case when at the time when the dying declaration was recorded, there was no emergency and/or any danger to the life, the dying declaration should be discarded as a whole (Para 6) - Merely because the weapon used is not recovered cannot be a ground not to rely upon the dying declaration. (Para 9) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Appeal against Gujarat High Court judgment extending the immunity under the "Income Declaration Scheme" (IDS) to an assessee who was not the declarant under the scheme - Allowed - The High Court fell into error, in holding that the sequitur to a declaration under the IDS can lead to immunity (from taxation) in the hands of a non-declarant. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. MR Shah Logistics, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment which held that an employer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output - Disposed - The impugned judgment protects the interest of the appellant and the workmen by prescribing the right procedure which should be followed in case the appellant is of the opinion that the workmen, though present on duty, are not working and are not giving the agreed production on the basis of which wages and incentives have been fixed. Bata India Ltd. vs. Workmen of Bata India Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appeal challenging NCLAT order which reversed the order of the NCLT wherein it had held that the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not time-barred - Allowed - The failure of the NCLAT as the first appellate authority to look into a very vital aspect such as this, vitiates its order, especially when NCLT has recorded a specific finding of fact - Remanded. S.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Interpretation of Statutes - it is the duty of the court to avoid a head­-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner so as to harmonise them - when two conflicting provisions in an Act cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both - if the court has a choice between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, such an interpretation will have to be avoided - an interpretation, which will result in anomaly or absurdity, should be avoided - the statute has to be interpreted in such a manner that it preserves its workability. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Judgments - Practice of pronouncing final order without a reasoned judgment - Serious difficulties are caused on account of the said practice - Even if such oral orders were to be pronounced, it is expected that they are either dictated in Court or at least must follow immediately thereafter to facilitate the aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher Court. (Para 2-3) Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judgments - High Court dictated operative portion of the order on 06.11.2019 but the final order was dictated only on 15.03.2020 i.e. after 4 months and it typed out and corrected on 15.04.2020 - Supreme Court observed that it has repeatedly frowned upon the aspect of the oral orders being passed. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Karnataka) - Beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural lands - In construing the provisions of such enactments, the court should adopt a construction which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory - Most of the tenants are villagers from remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons and that the Act is a beneficent legislation. This aspect has to be kept in mind while deciding cases under the Act. (Para 23, 28) Nadakerappa v. Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332

Legal Maxims - Nemo dat quod non habet - No one can confer a better title than what he himself has. (Para 19) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Enhanced the compensation payable to over Rupees 50 Lakhs in a motor accident case where appellant has been rendered paralysed for life after he met with an accident as a 5 year old boy in 2010 - The appellant is not able to move his both legs and had complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence and bowel constipation and bed sore. Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - The determination of damages in personal injury cases is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation. (Para 12) Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 39A - Appointment of the Additional Municipal Commissioners - State Government created post and made appointment, but for Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation - Additional Municipal Commissioner to exercise power subject to the control of the Commissioner - Respondent no. 1 was an employee of the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - Imposition of penalties on municipal officer and servants - the Commissioner was empowered to suspend any officer, whether appointed by the Corporation or any other competent authority - In case of 'post equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of Assistant Commissioner', in terms of Section 56(1)(a) it is required to take prior approval from the Corporation - When a Transport Manager or officers appointed under Section 45 of the MMC Act is suspended by the Commissioner they are to inform the Corporation, which is to confirm suspension within a period of six months or else the suspension would come to an end - the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation will have the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 118(a) - Presumption - Every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 41(b) and (d) - Injunction can be refused when sought to restrain any person from institution or prosecuting any proceedings in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought - Injunction can be refused when sought to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Partition - It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek the cancellation of the alienations- Alienees as well as the cosharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the co­sharer. It may also be open to the alienee, in the final decree proceedings, to seek the allotment of the transferred property, to the share of the transferor, so that equities are worked out in a fair manner. (Para 15) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Section 148 - Merely because three persons were chargesheeted/charged/tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC when involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. (Para 12) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Power of Attorney - The power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney - Ordinarily a Power of Attorney is to be construed strictly by the Court - Cannot amplify or magnify the clauses contained in the deed of Power of Attorney - The document should expressly authorize the agent, (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority. (Para 9, 17-18) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Power of Attorney - The possession of an agent under a deed of Power of Attorney is also the possession of the Principal and that any unauthorized sale made by the agent will not tantamount to the Principal parting with possession. (Para 14) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Precedents - A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. The judgment has to be construed in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances in which the judgment has been rendered. Words, phrases and sentences in a judgment, cannot be read out of context. Nor is a judgment to be read and interpreted in the manner of a statute. It is only the law as interpreted by in an earlier judgment, which constitutes a binding precedent, and not everything that the Judges say. (Para 41) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Remand - An order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. (Para 25) Nadakerappa v. Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332

Restitution - Advantages secured by a litigant, on account of orders of court, at his behest, should not be perpetuated - After the dismissal of the lis, the party concerned is relegated to the position which existed prior to the filing of the petition in the court which had granted the stay - No one can be permitted to take the benefit of the wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by the higher forum/court - No party should be prejudiced because of the order of the court. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324

Service Law - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which upheld School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Private School Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, setting aside the Enquiry Committee's order of dismissal on the sole ground that the President of the Management was not the President of the Enquiry Committee - Allowed - "Doctrine of Necessity" applied to sustain the findings of a Disciplinary Enquiry Committee against a School Principal, after noting that the President of the Committee had to be replaced due to ill health. Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Ramesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327

Service Law - Suppression of information about criminal cases - This Court has held that giving of a wrong information disentitles the candidate for appointment -An employee desirous of holding civil post has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. Truthfulness cannot be made causality by an aspirant much more for a candidate aspiring to be a teacher. (Paras 10, 11 and 12) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Bheem Singh Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Societies Registration Act, 1860; Section 6 – Travancore ­ Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955; Section 9 - Unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit. (Para 15) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 83 - Revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso to Sub­section (9) of Section 83 is narrower than the jurisdiction that could have been conferred upon an appellate court. (Para 12) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Will - Suspicious Circumstances - Appeal against Madras HC order which set aside a probate granted to the appellant by the District Court in respect of two last Wills and Testaments - Allowed - Each one of the circumstances (recorded by the High Court), neither individually nor collectively creates a suspicion. Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Will - Suspicious Circumstances - The exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances - Cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned - In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will. (Para 21, 25) Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Bata India Ltd. v. Workmen of Bata India Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325
2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. MR Shah Logistics, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323
3. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340
4. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Bheem Singh Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339
5. Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Ramesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327
6. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337
7. Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330
8. Mekha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324
9. Nadakerappa v Pillamma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 332
10. P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334
11. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333
12. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329
13. Shripati Lakhu Mane v. Member Secretary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331
14. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336
15. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335
16. S.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 326
17. Swarnalatha v. Kalavathy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328
18. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338
19. Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322