Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 763 To 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799

SUBJECT WISE INDEX

Advocate

It is very unfortunate that the Advocates representing the State Government have to approach the Court of Law for recovery of their fees - Ensure that an Advocate who appears for the State is paid his fees within a reasonable time. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bina Pandey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 769

Disciplinary Action against advocate who was running taxi service - The findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council are based on documentary evidence - The Supreme Court found no error in the decision of BCI to bar the advocate from practice for one year. Phoola Ram Jaat v. Sanwar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Advocate acting as real estate agent and selling a client's property amounts to misconduct. The direction of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India to suspend him as an Advocate for five years is fully justified. (Para 7) Syed Altaf Ahmed v. S. Suson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 767

Armed Forces

Are civilian employees of Armed Forces Unit Run Canteens (URCs) Government Servants? - The matter refers to Larger Bench. (Para 6 – 8) Union of India v. Vinod Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 795

Bail

Once the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to bail, there was no reason to restrict the bail to the period of three months. Ranjit Digal v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 772

When accused persons are in prison, it is the duty of the police to produce them before the trial court. If the police fail to produce them before the court, then the accused cannot be made to suffer due to such negligence of the police. Satendra Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Cheque

The Supreme Court comes to the rescue of a party who filed a cheque bounce case in wrong court after noting he got incorrect legal advice. Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Section 148 NI Act - Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule; can be relaxed if an exceptional case is made out. Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Civil Law

Res judicata can't be decided in application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as previous suit documents have to be seen. Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799

Constitution of India

Article 20(1) of the Constitution doesn't bar retrospective application of procedural changes in criminal trial. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Once a law is declared unconstitutional, it becomes inoperative from its inception; void ab initio. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Consumer Law

Party has the right to address final arguments before NCDRC despite not filing a written version. ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Hara Prasad Ghosh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 763

Copyright

In suit for passing off, the plaintiff is required to prove figures of sale/ advertisement expenses to establish goodwill. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

Corruption

Public servants lose immunity in pre-2014 corruption cases; Supreme Court clarifies that striking down of Sec 6A DSPE Act has retrospective effect. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Criminal Law

Supreme Court refuses to quash FIR against UP Congress leader over alleged 'Modi-Adani love affair’ remark. Sachin Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Principle of Parity - When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination. (Para 15) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782 : 2023 INSC 829

Standard of proof to prove insanity is only 'reasonable doubt' : Supreme Court acquits man accused of killing his grandfather. Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

Supreme Court refers sedition law challenge to larger bench, says new bill to replace IPC can't affect past cases. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

The Supreme Court upholds life sentence for men who murdered woman alleging witchcraft. Bhaktu Gorain v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 779 : 2023 INSC 821

Cross-Examination

Huge pendency of suits in the Trial Courts - If the members of the Bar do not cooperate with the Trial Courts, it will be very difficult for our Courts to deal with the huge arrears. While a trial is being conducted, the members of the Bar are expected to act as officers of the Court. They are expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable and fair manner. The members of the Bar must remember that fairness is a hallmark of great advocacy. If the advocates start objecting to every question asked in the cross-examination, the trial cannot go on smoothly. The trial gets delayed. In the facts of the case, looking at the persistent objections raised by the learned advocate, the Court was required to record a substantial part of the cross-examination in question-and-answer form which consumed a lot of time of the Court. (Para 19) Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

Doctrine of Merger

An order refusing special leave to appeal by a non-speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger. (Para 18) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782 : 2023 INSC 829

Evidence

Lack of positive viscera report not conclusive proof that victim didn’t die of poisoning: supreme court upholds conviction in dowry death case. Buddhadeb Saha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Supreme Court deprecates advocates raising unnecessary objections to questions in cross-examinations, urges bar to co-operate with trial courts. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

IBC

Cannot ask successful resolution applicant to pay arrears payable by corporate debtor for grant/restoration of electricity connection. Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Ltd. v. Jagannath Sponge Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 788

Admitting claims after a resolution plan has been accepted by COC would make CIRP an endless process. RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2023 INSC 816

Legal Education

It is a matter of great concern that a National Law University, which are institutions in the forefront of legal education, should operate only with contractual teachers. This is unacceptable and undesirable. These are supposed to be institutions of excellence and you cannot expect excellence in institutions where there is constant inflow and outflow of teaching staff because they are contractual in character. It is time to remedy the position. National Law University Jodhpur v. Prashant Mehta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 785

Media Trial

Propriety and procedure of media briefings by police personnel - The Supreme Court directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to prepare a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel within a period of three months. Also directed Director Generals of Police (DGPs) of all states to submit their suggestions for the manual. The input of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) will be considered in this matter. (Para 18 – 20) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2023 INSC 833

Unfair reporting by the media has the potential to affect public opinion and impinge upon the presumption of innocence which is one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. (Para 7) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2023 INSC 833

Mines & Minerals

MMDR Act - Supreme Court explains exceptions to Sec 10A(1) which makes mining lease applications received before 12.01.2015 ineligible. State of West Bengal v. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 787 : 2023 INSC 824

Motor Vehicle

LMV license issue: supreme court concerned about impact on drivers' livelihood if 'Mukund Dewangan' is reversed; urges centre to consider amendments. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 793 : 2023 INSC 832

Partition

In partition suit, every interested party deemed to be a plaintiff - No bar in passing numerous preliminary decrees. (Para 8) A. Krishna Shenoy v. Ganga Devi G., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 778

Police

It is the duty of police to produce imprisoned accused before court, accused can't be blamed for police's negligence. Satendra Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Practice and Procedure

Practice of filling several miscellaneous civil applications (MCA) for seeking review of the judgment passed in Second Appeal – Held, no litigant should be permitted to misuse the process of law through vexatious applications. (Para 8) Vasant Nature Cure Hospital & Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust v. Ukaji Ramaji, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 783 : 2023 INSC 825

'Sorry state of affairs': Supreme Court criticises registry for shifting blame on court masters for not complying with order. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775

Court Masters had no role to play in compliance with the orders of the Apex Court and they cannot be blamed for the lapse. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775

When a Bench of two Judges requires printed copies of the depositions, it is obvious that only one copy cannot be supplied and two copies are required. The explanations submitted by some staff members show that even this elementary knowledge was lacking. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775

Concerned Registrar (Judicial Listing) to instruct the members of the staff that the orders of the Court should be scrupulously implemented and in event, any member of the Registry has any doubt, they should seek clarification through the Court Masters. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775

Public Interest Litigation

PIL challenges the Cabinet decision to relax the payment terms for the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) due from Telecom Service Providers. Held, The Government's decision to give relaxations to the telecom sector in view of the outstanding performance of the telecom sector in meeting the COVID-19 pandemic challenges. The huge surge in data consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated reform measures to boost proliferation and penetration of broadband and telecom connectivity. These are all matters of policy and decision-making which is on the basis of experts’ opinion and on emerging situations and exigencies, to be made in the interest of the welfare of the people of India having serious technical and financial implications and, therefore, have to be in public interest. Hence, we do not think such Cabinet decisions could be lightly interfered with by a Court of law in the absence of there being any particulars or materials brought to the notice of the Court assailing the Cabinet decisions, as being unconstitutional or arbitrary in nature or contrary to law. (Para 11) Anshul Gupta v. Prime Minister Office, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 765

Registration

WB Registration Act - Registrar cannot exercise power of substantive review while cancelling society's registration. Chen Khoi Kui v. Liang Miao Sheng, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 796 : 2023 INSC 827

Service Law

Promotion given to employee continuing in service on strength of interim order will lose effect once petition is dismissed. (Para 11) Jagpal Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 771 : 2023 INSC 777

Specific Performance

When no time is fixed for performance, limitation runs from the period when plaintiff had notice of refusal. A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 777 : 2023 INSC 823

Tax

Cooperative society not doing banking business but providing credit facilities to members eligible for Sec 80P deduction under Income Tax Act. Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 786 : 2023 INSC 830

No bar in assessee seeking restoration of appeal after being unsuccessful in availing amnesty scheme. P.M. Paul v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 774

Telecom

Supreme Court upholds centre's decision to relax AGR dues payment by telecom cos; but says filing application to modify orders was more appropriate. Anshul Gupta v. Prime Minister Office, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 765

Vaccination

Supreme Court refuses to hold pharma company liable for not mentioning adverse reaction of vaccination, says doctor should've advised patient. Prakash Bang v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 764 : 2023 INSC 794

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act,1981 - If a cooperative society does not transact the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the BR Act, it would not be a cooperative bank. Thus, if a co-operative society is not a ‘co-operative bank’ within the meaning of Section 56 of the BR Act, then such an entity would be entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. But on the other hand, if it is a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 56 of BR Act, 1949 read with the provisions of NABARD Act, 1981, then it would not be entitled to the benefit of deduction under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act. (Para 15.8) Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 786 : 2023 INSC 830

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint and Res judicata - As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is concerned, the Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application. Hence, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment of the Appellate Courts. (Para 5 & 6) Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 386 - The judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused. (Para 24) Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 148 - When Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it can consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount - If the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. (Para 7-10) Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(1) does not bar retrospective application of procedural changes in criminal trial. (Para 10.2) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(1) has no applicability either to the validity or invalidity of Section 6A of the DSPE Act. (Para 36) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution can be invoked even suo motu in compelling cases. While considering the appeal filed by another accused person, the Court noted that the evidences against all the accused persons were the same. Hence, the benefit of acquittal given to one accused has to be extended to the other accused also, even if they haven't approached the Supreme Court. (Para 17) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782 : 2023 INSC 829

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a), 14 and 21 - Indian Penal Code 1860; Section 124A - Constitutional validity of Sedition Law - Held, the provisions of Section 124A of the IPC continue to remain on the statute book. Even if the new law which is proposed to be placed by the Government before the legislature results in a modification of the existing provision of Section 124A, there is a presumption that a penal statute would have prospective and not retrospective effect. Existing prosecutions under Section 124A will likely be governed by that provision. Consequently, the validity of the prosecutions which have been launched or would be launched so long as Section 124A continues to remain on the statute would have to be assessed under it. The issue of the validity of the provision for the period that it continues to operate would, therefore, need to be determined. (Para 7 & 8) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a), 14 and 21 - Indian Penal Code 1860; Section 124A - In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769 the Constitution Bench upheld the provisions of Section 124A. The provisions of Section 124A have only been tested on the anvil of Article 19(1)(a). In view of the development of law that has taken place in the six decades since the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath Singh, it would be necessary to re-evaluate the validity of Section 124A on the basis of the doctrines which have evolved in those years particularly having a bearing on the ambit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The submissions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners would warrant consideration by a Bench of at least five Judges of this Court. Held, the appropriate course of action for a three Judge Bench of this Court would be to direct that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India so that, if so considered appropriate, the batch of cases can be heard by a Bench of five or more Judges, since the decision in Kedar Nath Singh’s case (supra) was rendered by a Constitution Bench. (Para 13) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) where the Commission had held that no case of deficiency of service was made out against drug-manufacturer, Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, in relation to administration of vaccine Engerix-B. The complainant had failed to prove the allegations with the minimal required evidence even on a preponderance of probability. Non-mentioning of ‘myositis’ as an adverse reaction in the literature accompanying the injection or on the ‘vial’, did not amount to ‘deficiency of service’ on part of the pharmaceutical company, more particularly when the adverse reaction was to the minimal level, i.e., 0.02 in one million. Prakash Bang v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 764 : 2023 INSC 794

Copyright Act, 1957 – Infringement - Passing-off Action - In a suit for passing off, for establishing goodwill of the product, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove not only the figures of sale of the product but also the expenditure incurred on promotion and advertisement of the product. Though the statement of sales, advertisement and sale promotion expenses certified by a Chartered Accountant, were exhibited by the plaintiff in the suit before the Trial Court, the Chartered Accountant was not examined to prove the statements. Though the statements may constitute a material for examining whether a prima facie case was made out against the opposite party by the plaintiff, however, at the time of the final hearing of the suit, the figures must be proved in a manner known to law. (Para 13) Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6A of the DSPE Act is a part of the procedure only in the form of a protection to senior government servants. It does not introduce any new offence nor it enhances the punishment or sentence. (Para 24) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Section 6A - Whether a 2014 judgment striking down Section 6A (1) of the DSPE Act which mandated central government sanction for investigations involving certain government officials, would retrospectively apply to pending cases. Held, once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part-III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, still born, unenforceable and non-est in view of Article 13(2) of the Constitution and its interpretation by authoritative pronouncements. Thus, the declaration made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682 will have retrospective operation. Section 6A of the DSPE Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e. 11.09.2003. (Para 43) Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Admitting claims after the Resolution Plan has been accepted by the Committee of Creditors (COC) under IBC even though the Adjudicating Authority has yet to approve the plan, would make the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) an endless process. (Para 21) RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2023 INSC 816

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Once the Resolution Plan stands approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Electricity Department cannot demand payment of arrears, which were payable by the Corporate Debtor, from the Successful Resolution Applicant for restoration/grant of electricity connection. The ‘clean slate principle’ would stand negated if the Successful Resolution Applicant is asked to pay the arrears payable by the Corporate Debtor for the grant of an electricity connection in her/his name. Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Ltd. v. Jagannath Sponge Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 788

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party. (Para 20) RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2023 INSC 816

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Whether the delay in the filing of claim by the appellant ought to have been condoned by the Resolution Professional. Held, The IBC is a time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the Corporate Debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the Corporate Debtor was undergoing CIRP. The appellant has been deficient on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the appellant to an extent has been left high and dry. (Para 19) RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2023 INSC 816

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 54 - Specific Performance of Contract - When no time is fixed for performance, limitation runs from the period when the plaintiff had notice of refusal. (Para 27) A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 777 : 2023 INSC 823

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Sections 10-A, 10-A (1), 10-A (2)(b) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Concession Rules, 2016; Rule 61 and Proviso - Exceptions applicable to Section 10-A (1) of the MMDR Act - Where a prospecting licence has been granted to the permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, and the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements specified in Section 10- A (2)(b) of the MMDR Act, the bar of Section 10-A (1) shall not be applicable. Another exception was when the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval or the State Government had issued a ‘Letter of Intent’ for grant of mining lease before coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 787 : 2023 INSC 824

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The primary issue which has been referred to the Constitution Bench is whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. In Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663, a 3-judge Bench held that a separate endorsement in the "Light Motor Vehicle" driving licence was not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kgs. Thus, a person holding an LMV driving licence was entitled to drive a "transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class" having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. In 2022, the dictum in Mukund Dewangan was doubted by a coordinate bench and the matter was referred to a 5-judge bench. Held, statutory issue combined with social policy, not an interpretative exercise to be carried by court. An interpretation given by the Court could impact the livelihood of hordes of drivers. Therefore, the Central Government should consider bringing appropriate legislative amendments to strike a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns. (Para 14) Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 793 : 2023 INSC 832

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 and 142(2)(a) - Territorial Jurisdiction - When the case was fixed for final arguments, the Magistrate, on examining the records, came to the conclusion that the court did not have territorial jurisdiction. No opportunity was granted to the complainant to take remedial steps. The Magistrate passed the order without realizing the legal consequences as well as the fact that the trial had remained pending for more than four years and had proceeded without any objection to territorial jurisdiction, till the stage of final arguments. There was a lapse and proper legal guidance, which was not provided to the complainant. Held, that the complainant should not suffer on account of lack of proper legal assistance. Procedural defect / lapse, had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Code is procedural in nature and technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice. Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 148 - Normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. (Para 5 - 6) Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153A, 505(2) and 504 - Quashing of FIR - Abusive and derogatory comments about holder of a high office - The law enforcement agency is still investigating the alleged commission of offences and they ought to decide on future course of action after completion of investigation. At this stage it is not a fit case for interference. Sachin Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt - A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. (Para 19 - 22) Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 341, 302 r/w. 34 - All the five accused persons called the deceased a witch who is the cause of trouble to the villagers as she used to indulge in witchcraft. The nature of injuries which have been caused on the head of the deceased with the deadly weapons proves that they had assembled with the common intention and not merely to threaten her or to deter her from practicing witchcraft. In the light of the clinching evidence and in the absence of any specific lacuna in the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced, held, that the trial court had not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused persons with imprisonment of life. The conviction and sentence have rightly been affirmed by the High Court. (Para 19) Bhaktu Gorain v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 779 : 2023 INSC 821

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 498A, 304B r/w. 34 – Dowry Death - Poisoning - Absence of detection of poison in the viscera report alone need not be treated as a conclusive proof of the fact that the victim has not died of poison. In certain circumstances, traces of poison may not be found in the body due to evaporation, vomiting, purging, and detoxification processes. Where the deceased dies as a result of poisoning, it is difficult to successfully isolate the poison and recognize it. Lack of positive evidence in this respect would not result in throwing out the entire prosecution case, if the other circumstances clearly point out the guilt of the accused. (Para 29, 30 & 33) Buddhadeb Saha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Registration Act, 1961 (West Bengal) - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court where it was held that the Registrar of Society can only cancel registration granted to a society under the Act, 1961, by exercising a power of procedural review. The High Court was of the view that there is a vital difference between a power of substantive review and procedural review, and the former was not available to the Registrar while deciding an application for cancellation of registration. The High Court observed that the Registrar had proceeded to exercise his power of substantive review, that too without reference to the application for registration that succeeded, while passing the cancellation order. Chen Khoi Kui v. Liang Miao Sheng, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 796 : 2023 INSC 827

Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Kerala) - Amnesty Scheme - Since appeal is a statutory remedy, the assessee cannot be barred from seeking restoration of the appeal which was withdrawn by him as a pre-condition for availing the benefit under an Amnesty scheme, if the assessee is subsequently unsuccessful in availing the benefit of the scheme. The appellate authority as well as the Kerala High Court ought to have allowed the assessee to seek restoration of his appeal before the appellate authority so that the same could have been heard on merits. The court thus set aside the order of the High Court where it had upheld the appellant authority’s decision rejecting assessee’s application for restoration of appeal against the assessment order passed against him. P.M. Paul v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 774