Supreme Court Weekly Digests With Nominal, Subject Wise And Statute Wise Index [February 13 to 20]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - The principle that a court while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the Arbitrator for a fresh decision would be applicable where the Appellate Court decides the application under Section 34 of the Act on merits - Even in a case where the award is set aside under Section 34 of the Act on whatever the grounds which may be available under Section 34 of the Act, in that case the parties can still agree for the fresh arbitration may be by the same arbitrator - When both the parties agreed to set aside the award and to remit the matter to the learned Sole Arbitrator for fresh reasoned Award, it is not open to contend that the matter may not be and/or ought not to have been remanded to the same sole arbitrator. (Para 8) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 163

Architects Act, 1972 - Section 21, 45 - Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 - The Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) or even otherwise. It is only in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central Government under Section 45(1) would become necessary. (Para 15) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 - Regulation 116 - The width and amplitude of Regulation 116 cannot be restricted by interpreting the word 'deviation' as having lesser scope than exemption. 'Deviation' from the Regulations would amount to either exemption or relaxation. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Division Bench that the order dated 13.02.2019 cannot be said to have been issued beyond the power conferred by Regulation 116 of 2010 Regulations. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of the proceedings. (Para 26.1) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Section 10 - Application under Section 10 CPC , by its very nature, requires immediate consideration and before any other steps in the suit - If the prayer made in the application moved under Section 10 were to be granted, the trial of the subject suit is not to be proceeded with at all. (Para 26) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Order II Rule 2, 3 - Joinder of causes of action - Order II Rule 3 does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit. The failure to join together all claims arising from a cause of action will be visited with consequences proclaimed in Order II Rule 2 - The Code of Civil Procedure indeed permits a plaintiff to join causes of action but it does not compel a plaintiff to do so. (Para 16,17) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Order I Rule 3 - Non-joining of necessary parties is fatal. (Para 18) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant -With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. [Referred to Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 ] (Para 27 - 29) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Section 482 - Complainants are defendants in civil suits with regard to the same transactions - Complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC filed after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement - Ulterior motive of harassing the accused - Continuation of the present proceedings would amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law. (Para 22, 30) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC- The orders passed by the Supreme Court on 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 10.07.2020, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 applies in relation to the period prescribed for filing the written statement- Unrealistic and illogical to assume that while the Court has provided for exclusion of period for institution of the suit and therefore, a suit otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) could still be filed within 90 days from 03.10.2021 but the period for filing written statement, if expired during that period, has to operate against the defendant - the period envisaged finally in the order dated 23.09.2021 is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases where the delay is otherwise not condonable - The orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 were of extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances and their operation cannot be curtailed with reference to the ordinary operation of law. (Para 20.2) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC- In the ordinary circumstances,On expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and no Court can make an order to extend such time beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons. (Para 16) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 10, Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC- These provisions are intended to provide the consequences in relation to a defendant who omits to perform his part in progress of the suit as envisaged by the rules of procedure and are not intended to override all other provisions of CPC like those of Section 10. (Para 26.1) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Policy Decision - The policy of the State of Rajasthan is that while selecting Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks are to be given to such employees who have done similar work under the State Government and under the various schemes - Whether such bonus marks would also be available to the contractual employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States - The policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Para 22) 2021 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Article 15 - Practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism - Such attitudes have no place in our society; recent developments have highlighted areas hitherto considered exclusive male "bastions" such as employment in the armed forces, are no longer so. (Para 48) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licenced bars is void - This restriction directly transgresses Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g)- the latter provision both in its effect to the performers as well as the license owners. While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination. (Para 47, 49) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender-cap (i.e. four females and four males, in any performance) appears to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments,, belong to a certain class of society Such measures – which claim protection, in reality are destructive of Article 15 (3) as they masquerade as special provisions and operate to limit or exclude altogether women's choice of their avocation (Para 42, 46) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Article 226 - Judicial review of policy decisions - Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Para 16) 2021 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Article 226 - "Person aggrieved" - Despite adequate opportunity, if a person has not lodged any objection at an appropriate stage and time, he could not be said to have been in fact, grieved. [Referred to Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671] (Para 8.1) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - High Courts to be more discerning / vigilant and/or cautious while entertaining writ petitions apparently filed in public interest - (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations; (2) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL; (3) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL; (4) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition; (5) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation; and (6) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. [Referred to State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402 ] (Para 8.12) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Article 226 - Writ Petition - Locus Standi - Registered Society of Professional Architects who claim to be teaching faculty in institutions imparting education in Architecture, filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for quashing the "Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017- High Court quashed the Regulations - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court while setting aside the High Court judgment observed: Due to the nature of its membership, the society could have been aggrieved only by the prescriptions affecting the teaching faculty. It could not have challenged the prescriptions with which they are not in any way concerned. (Para 19) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 67 Proviso - Onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act. (Para 34) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (Maharashtra) - Rule 107(14) - Once the borrower failed to apply to the Recovery Officer to set aside the auction sale on the grounds of material irregularity, mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the auction sale within a period of thirty days from the date of sale of immovable property, thereafter it was not open for the borrower to challenge the sale on the ground of material irregularity. (Para 7.1) 2022 LiveLaw (SC)183

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused - Burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in section 106 of the Evidence Act when the prosecution could not prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused. (Para 15-16) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 - Constitutional Validity - Interim order passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court staying the implementation of the Act set aside - Stay of legislation can only be when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional - Sufficient reasons should be given for staying legislations. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end - There should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. (Para 7) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion - The reasons for a dispute between husband and wife are always very complex. Every matrimonial dispute is different from another. Whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence. (Para 8) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion - Merely because on account of the death of the appellant's mother, the respondent visited her matrimonial home in December 2009 and stayed there only for one day, it cannot be said that there was a resumption of cohabitation. (Para 11) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Right of minority workmen to raise industrial dispute - A minority union of workers may raise an industrial dispute even if another union which consists of the majority of them enters into a settlement with the employer [Referred to Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. Their Workmen [(1981) 4 SCC 627] ] (Para 20) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Tribunal - The Tribunal could not go beyond the disputes that were referred to it - The scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is wide and in appropriate cases it has the jurisdiction even to make a contract. (Para 14, 25) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Tribunal - If irregularity or illegality committed by a Tribunal touches upon the jurisdiction to try and determine over a subject dispute is altogether beyond its purview, that question would go to the root of the matter and it would be within the jurisdiction of the superior court to correct such error. (Para 15) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Section 18 - Binding nature of a settlement on all persons employed in an establishment discussed. (Para 16- 17) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

The principle of limited interference would apply to a proceeding of this nature under the 1947 Act. (Para 25) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - The plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the accused cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation. (Para 38)

Section 7A - Date of Birth certificate be obtained after filing of the application under Section 7A of the Act cannot be relied upon. (Para 9) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Section 7A - Ossification test varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case - It cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India. (Para 15-17) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12(3) - U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 - Birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility. The family register is not a birth certificate. Therefore, it would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of Rule 12(3) of the Rules. (Para 37) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 - Family register does not only contain date of birth but also keeps the records of any additions in the family, though the evidentiary value needs to be examined in each case - It is a question of fact as to how much evidentiary value is to be attached to the family register, but to say that it is entirely not relevant would not be the correct enunciation of law. The register is being maintained in accordance with the rules framed under a statute. (Para 35-36) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Licensing and Performance for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rule, 1960 - The regulation on the overall number of performers, or even the dimensions of a stage (on which a performance can take place) cannot be characterized as a restriction; they can fall within the legitimate domain of the authority of the commissioner or the government which formulates such conditions. (Para 47) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 4 - If the prescribed period for any suit/appeal/application expires on day when the Court is considered 'closed', such proceedings may be instituted on the re-opening day - A day when the Court may not as such be closed in physical sense, it would be 'deemed' to be closed, if during any part of its normal working hours, it remains closed on that day for any particular proceedings or work. (Para 25.2.1) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 56, 59 and 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Rule 174 (2) (c) made by the State Government to enable replacement of the vehicle under a Transport permit, does not impinge upon the powers of the Central Government with respect to fixation of the age of the vehicle, or fitness of the vehicle conferred upon it under Sections 56 and 59 in Chapter IV. The scrutiny under Rule 174 is only to enable the Authority to ensure that the subsisting permit is not interrupted and at the same time public interest is not compromised by deviating from the permit. The Rule will have no bearing on the power of the Central Government and as such it would not be ultra vires the provisions of the Act. (Para 13.6) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Section 72 - Grant of a transport permit is an important function that the statutory authority under the Act would perform (Para 18.1) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Rule 174(2)(c) [which enables road transport authority to reject an application for replacement if the proposed vehicle is older than the one covered under the existing permit] is valid - Rule 174 (2) (c) is neither ultra vires the Act, nor has overridden Section 83 - Kerala HC Judgment in Regional Transport Authority vs. Shaju [ILR 2017 (3) Ker. 720] set aside. (Para 1, 23, 24) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - The purpose and object of mandating replacement by a vehicle of the same nature in Section 83 is only to ensure that the scrutiny and the conditions that were undertaken and imposed at the time of the grant continue even during the subsistence of the permit Rule 174 (2) (c) is intended to ensure that the conditions under which a transport permit is granted is not diluted when the vehicle covered by the permit is sought to be replaced by a new vehicle. (Para 15) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - The vehicle which the Authority may not approve for replacement under section 83 on the ground that it is older than the vehicle covered under the permit, can be used as a transport vehicle within the State. There is no prohibition for such a usage as the said vehicle may continue to be fit and within the age limit prescribed by the Central Government. The rigour of Rule 174 (2) (c) is only in the context of a subsisting transport permit and not as a condition for transport vehicles as such. (Para 13.7) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Section 83 - The expression "same nature" is confined only to, mean "a bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a minibus…." is not a correct way to read the provision. There is no need to restrict the meaning of an expression same nature - The phrase, of the same nature seen in the context of provisions proximate to Sections 83, relating to duration and renewals of permits (Section 81), transfer of permits (Section 82) lend clarity to the meaning of the expression. Same nature must necessarily relate to the same nature of the vehicle in the permit. The question to be asked is the nature of the vehicle under the permit. What kind of a vehicle was that? How was that connected to the permit granted? Does the new vehicle serve the same purpose as the old vehicle was serving under the permit? (Para 21.3, 13.4) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Section 83 - A scrutiny of the vehicle, stand alone, irrespective of its relation with the permit becomes an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of Section 83 - the scope of scrutiny is limited only to examining if the vehicle is of same nature as in the permit. (Para 13.2,13.3) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Replacement of a vehicle during the subsistence and continuation of a transport permit is only an incident in the working of a transport permit. While addressing such an incident, the Authority cannot be oblivious of the history and background in which the permit is granted. (Para 21.2) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - The quantity of the neutral substance is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with the actual content of the weight of the offending drug while determining small and commercial quantities. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 173

Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 30(5) - Sub-Section (5) of Section 30 shall not be applicable to a minor partner who was not a partner at the time of his attaining the majority and, thereafter, he shall not be liable for any past dues of the partnership firm when he was a partner being a minor. (Para 6) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Section 30(5) - Sub-Section (5) of Section 30 shall be applicable only in a case where a minor was inducted as a partner and thereafter at the time of attaining the majority he continued as a partner in that case such a partner who has been continued is required to give six months' notice as provided under sub-Section (5) of Section 30. If such a person who has been continued as a partner at the time of attaining the majority does not give six months notice as per sub-Section (5) of Section 30, in that case, he is deemed to have been and/or he shall be continued or treated to have been continued as a partner and the consequences and the liability as per sub-Section (7) of Section 30 shall follow. (Para 6) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The fact that the provisional attachment order is set aside by the High Court, does not per se result in nullifying the adjudication proceedings, which, can proceed and need to be taken to its logical end by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Section 5 - The satisfaction to be recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 5 of the PMLA is in two respects. The first is that the property in question had been acquired through proceeds of crime and involved in an offence of money laundering; and the second satisfaction specific in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act is that the owner/occupant of the property, who is in possession, is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with the same in any manner. This satisfaction is recorded for the purpose of interim arrangement during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings for securing the property in question. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Section 5, 17 and 18 - The adjudication gets triggered after the complaint under Section 5(5) is filed before the adjudicating authority or on an application under Section 17(4) and also 18(10) of the Act. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Section 5(1) - The power to provisionally attach tainted property is only of the authorised officer upon being satisfied about the existence of circumstances referred to in Section 5(1). 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Section 8 -The adjudication under Section 8 entails finally in confiscation of the tainted property or release thereof. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - This shall be applicable in a case where proceedings before the RERA authority are initiated by the homer buyers to protect their rights. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - In the event of conflict between RERA and SARFAESI Act the provisions contained in RERA would prevail. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - This shall be applicable in a case where proceedings before the RERA authority are initiated by the homer buyers to protect their rights. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

RERA would not apply in relation to the transaction between the borrower and the banks and financial institutions in cases where security interest has been created by mortgaging the property prior to the introduction of the Act unless and until it is found that the creation of such mortgage or such transaction is fraudulent or collusive. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017 - Regulation 9 - Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2017 is not ultra vires the Act or is otherwise not invalid - The delegation of powers in the single member of RERA to decide complaints filed under the Act even otherwise flows from Section 81 of the Act and such delegation can be made in absence of Regulation 9 also. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - Regulation 9, 10 - Consideration of the report of the investigating authority which is submitted under Regulation 9 is one of the components guiding the Board's satisfaction on the violation of the regulations - the investigation report is not merely an internal document - The Board forms an opinion regarding the violation of Regulations after considering the investigation report prepared under Regulation 9 (Para 21, 51) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Regulation 9 - Whether an investigation report under Regulation 9 of the PFUTP Regulations must be disclosed to the person to whom a notice to show cause is issued ? - The Board shall be duty-bound to provide copies of such parts of the report which concern the specific allegations which have been levelled in show cause notice. (Para 52) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Where some portions of the enquiry report involve information on third parties or confidential information on the securities market, the Board cannot for that reason assert a privilege against disclosing any part of the report - Board can withhold disclosure of those sections of the report which deal with third-party personal information and strategic information bearing upon the stable and orderly functioning of the securities market. (Para 51) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

The right to disclosure is not absolute. The disclosure of information may affect other third-party interests and the stability and orderly functioning of the securities market. It should prima facie established that the disclosure of the report would affect third-party rights and the stability and orderly functioning of the securities market. The onus then shifts to the noticee to prove that the information is necessary to defend his case appropriately. (Para 51) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 21(5) - Whether compensation can be granted in lieu of specific performance unless claimed in the plaint -Supreme Court disallows claim for compensation as it was not specifically claimed in the plaint. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185

The scope of Section 21 (4) and (5) was examined by this Court in Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex and Another (supra). This Court referred to the Law Commission of India's recommendation that in no case the compensation should be decreed, unless it is claimed by a proper pleading. However, the Law Commission was of the opinion that it should be open to the plaintiff to seek an amendment to the plaint, at any stage of the proceedings in order to introduce a prayer for compensation, whether in lieu or in addition to specific performance. In the said case no claim for compensation for breach of agreement of sale was claimed either in addition to or in substitution of the performance of the agreement. Admittedly, there was no amendment to the plaint asking for compensation either in addition or in substitution of the performance of an agreement of sale. (Para 21) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185

AFFIDAVITS

'Affidavits Not Mere Sheets Of Paper But Solemn Statements On Oath' : Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of NOIDA Plot Allotment. 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Once an affidavit has been filed which is on the face of it false to the knowledge of the executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given. (Para 16) 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheets of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer an oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such a solemn statement made on oath. (Para 17) 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

ARBITRATION

Court U/Sec 34 Arbitration Act Can Remand Matter To Arbitrator For Fresh Decision If Both Parties Consented. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 163

ARCHITECTURE

Council Of Architecture Can Prescribe Minimum Standards Of Architectural Education Without Approval Of Central Govt. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172

AUCTION

Borrower Cannot Challenge Material Irregularity In Auction Sale Of Immovable Property Before Recovery Officer After 30 Days. 2022 LiveLaw (SC)183

Sale Pursuant To Public Auction Cannot Be Set Aside On The Basis Of Some Offer Made By Third Parties Subsequently. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

BANKING

The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non. (Para 11) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164

CIVIL LAW

Fraud vitiates all actions. (Para 17) 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Order II Rule 3 CPC Does Not Compel A Plaintiff To Join Two Or More Causes Of Action In A Single Suit. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

COMMERCIAL COURTS

Suo Motu Limitation Extension Orders Applicable To Filing Of Written Statements In Commercial Suits. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

'Intelligible Differentia' : Supreme Court Upholds State Policy To Deny Bonus Marks To NRHM/NHM Employees In Other States. 2021 LiveLaw (SC) 177

'Limits Women's Choice Of Avocation Under The Guise Of Protection' :Supreme Court Quashes Gender Cap In Orchestra Bars. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

No Coercive Steps Against Employers Under Haryana Law Providing 75% Job Quota For Locals Till HC Decides Validity. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178

CONSUMER LAW

Condition To Pre-Deposit 50% Amount To Challenge NCDRC Order Not Applicable To Complaints Filed Before Consumer Protection Act 2019. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 168

CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else - Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11,14) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Magistrate Shall Not Entertain Application U/s 156(3) CrPC If It Is Not Supported By Complainant's Affidavit. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Prior Criminal History, Conduct & Behaviour In Jail, Possible Danger To Society, Etc. Are Relevant Considerations While Considering Premature Release Plea. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 179

ELECTRICITY

State Govt Can Give Exemptions Or Relaxations To Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating To Safety And Electric Supply) Regulations 2010. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 188

EVIDENCE LAW

Section 106 Evidence Act Is Not Intended To Relieve Prosecution From Discharging Its Duty To Prove The Guilt Of The Accused. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

FAMILY LAW

'She Has Not Established Any Reasonable Cause For Staying Away From Matrimonial Home': Supreme Court Dissolves A Marriage On Ground Of 'Desertion'. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Minority Union Not Bound By Settlement Between Majority Union & Employer. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Subordinate Legislation - A subordinate legislation must be interpreted to effectuate the statutory purpose and objective. (Para 21.1) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

JUVENILE

Plea Of Juvenility Has To Be Raised In A Bonafide And Truthful Manner. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

LEGAL MAXIMS

Concept of dies non juridicus - A day which is regarded by the law as one on which no judicial act can be performed, or legal diligence used. [Referred to P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon] (Para 25.1) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

MONEY LAUNDERING

PMLA - Quashing Of Provisional Attachment Will Not Impact Adjudication Proceedings Before Adjudicating Authority. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

MOTOR VEHICLE

RTO Has Discretion To Reject Application For Permit Replacement If Proposed Vehicle Is Older Than The Existing One: Supreme Court Upholds Rule 174(2)(c) of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

NARCOTIC DRUGS

Quantity Of Neutral Substance Not To Be Excluded While Determining 'Small' And 'Commercial' Quantities. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 173

NATURAL JUSTICE

Quasi-Judicial Authority Has To Disclose Material That Has Been Relied Upon At The Stage Of Adjudication. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

PARTITION

The law looks with disfavor upon properties being partitioned partially. The principle that there cannot be a partial partition is not an absolute one. It admits of exceptions. (Para 10) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Ouster - The possession of a co-owner however long it may be, hardly by itself, will constitute ouster. In the case of a co-owner, it is presumed that he possesses the property on behalf of the entire body of co-owners. Even non-participation of rent and profits by itself need not amount to ouster. The proof of the ingredients of adverse possession are undoubtedly indispensable even in a plea of ouster. However, there is the additional requirement in the case of ouster that the elements of adverse possession must be shown to have been made known to the co-owner. This is apparently for the reason that the possession of a co-owner is treated as possession of other co-owners. While it may be true that it may not be necessary to actually drive out the co-owner from the property - Mere continuance in the possession of a co-owner does not suffice to set up a plea of ouster. The possession of the co-owner will also be referable to lawful title. (Para 24) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Properties not in the possession of co-sharers/coparceners being omitted cannot result in a suit for the partition of the properties which are in their possession being rejected. (Para 11) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

It is not the law that a co-owner cannot acquire his own independent or separate properties. (Para 29) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

PARTNERSHIP

Section 30(5) Partnership Act Not Applicable To A Minor Partner Who Was Not A Partner At The Time Of His Attaining Majority. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

'High Court Should Avoid Sweeping Observations': Supreme Court Expunges Delhi HC Remarks That Indian Bidders Are Discriminated. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Stay of legislation - Stay of legislation can only be when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional - Sufficient reasons should be given for staying legislations. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178

The High Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Factual Summary: The Delhi High Court made certain remarks on 'Make In India' while disposing a writ petition which it did not decide on merits - Partly allowing the appeal filed by Union of India, the Supreme Court expunged those remarks and observed: On the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made by the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175

PREMATURE RELEASE

Relevant Considerations - Prior criminal history, conduct and behaviour in jail, possible danger to society, etc. are relevant considerations - The application has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the applicant was convicted of the offence. (Para 6, 7) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 179

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Quasi Judicial Authority - A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication - An ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In all reasonable probability, such material would have influenced the decision reached by the authority - The actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. (Para 39) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Quasi Judicial Authority - The disclosure of material serves a three- fold purpose of decreasing the error in the verdict, protecting the fairness of the proceedings, and enhancing the transparency of the investigatory bodies and judicial institutions. (Para 51) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

PUBLIC AUCTION

The sale pursuant to the public auction can be set aside in an eventuality where it is found on the basis of material on record that the property had been sold away at a throw away price and/or on a wholly inadequate consideration because of the fraud and/or collusion and/or after any material irregularity and/or illegality is found in conducing/holding the public auction. After the public auction is held and the highest bid is received and the property is sold in a public auction in favour of a highest bidder, such a sale cannot be set aside on the basis of some offer made by third parties subsequently and that too when they did not participate in the auction proceedings and made any offer and/or the offer is made only for the sake of making it and without any serious intent. - If the auction/sale pursuant to the public auction is set aside on the basis of frivolous and irresponsible representations made by such persons then the sanctity of a public auction would be frustrated and the rights of a genuine bidder would be adversely affected. (Para 8.2) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Under normal circumstances, unless there are allegations of fraud and/or collusion and/or cartel and/or any other material irregularity or illegality, the highest offer received in the public auction may be accepted as a fair value. Otherwise, there shall not be any sanctity of a public auction. (Para 8.8) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

REAL ESTATE

RERA Prevails Over SARFAESI; Homebuyers Can Move RERA Authority Against Bank's Recovery Actions. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

SERVICE LAW

Denying Pension To Ad-hoc Employee After 30 Years Service Is Unreasonable. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Disciplinary Proceedings - Bank employee was dismissed after conducting a disciplinary proceedings - Appellate authority dismissed his appeal - Industrial Tribunal held that the punishment awarded to the employee of dismissal is not commensurate with the charge levelled against him - In writ petition filed against Tribunal order, the High Court refused to interfere with the Order for the reason that the respondent employee by that time had retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2007. Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal order and observed: Merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence. (Para 11) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Pension - High Court directed to pay pensionary benefits to an ad-hoc employee who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service - SLP filed by the State Dismissed - The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Superannuation Does Not Absolve Employee From Misconduct; Bank Employee Always Holds Position Of Trust. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Specific Relief Act - Compensation In Lieu Of Specific Performance Can't Be Granted Unless Specifically Claimed In Plaint. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185