R

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case - Supreme Court orders premature release of all 6 convicts. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Ratio Decidendi

Ratio Decidendi - Final relief granted need not be the natural consequences of the ratio decidendi of its judgment. (Para 26) B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90 : AIR 2022 SC 683 : (2022) 6 SCC 742

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - 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. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

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. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - 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. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

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. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - 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. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other - They are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy. (Para 14.1) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352 : AIR 2022 SC 1824

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Section 19, 31 - An independent suit filed by the borrower against the bank or financial institution cannot be transferred to be tried along with application under the RDB Act, as it is a matter of option of the defendant in the claim under the RDB Act - Since there is no such power, there is no question of transfer of the suit whether by consent or otherwise - Proceedings under the RDB Act will not be impeded in any manner by filing of a separate suit before the Civil Court - It is not open to a defendant, who may have taken recourse to the Civil Court, to seek a stay on the decision of the DRT awaiting the verdict of his suit before the Civil Court as it is a matter of his choice. (Para 49- 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Section 17, 18, 19 - Jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try a suit filed by a borrower against a Bank or Financial Institution is not ousted by virtue of the scheme of the RDB Act in relation to the proceedings for recovery of debt - There is no provision in the RDB Act by which the remedy of a civil suit by a defendant in a claim by the bank is ousted, but it is the matter of choice of that defendant. Such a defendant may file a counterclaim, or may be desirous of availing of the more strenuous procedure established under the Code, and that is a choice which he takes with the consequences thereof. (Para 45, 56) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (Uttar Pradesh)

Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (Uttar Pradesh); Rule 5 - Suitable Employment - The words "suitable employment" must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words "suitable employment". (Para 10) Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 675 : AIR 2022 SC 5416

Red Fort Attack case 2000

Red Fort Attack case 2000 - Death penalty awarded to Lakshar-e-Toiba militant Mohammed Arif affirmed by dismissing Review Petition - Even after eschewing circumstances which were directly attributable to the CDRs relied upon by the prosecution, the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt his involvement in the crime in question - The suggestion that there is a possibility of retribution and rehabilitation, is not made out from and supported by any material on record - The aggravating circumstances evident from the record and specially the fact that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, completely outweigh the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as mitigating circumstances on record. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra)

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Once the Act does not contemplate any further period for acquisition - The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State - The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain. (Para 7, 8) Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315 : (2022) 7 SCC 252

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra); Section 126 - Appeal against judgment of Bombay High Court which gave planning Authority one year further time to acquire the land once reserved relying upon a Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors (2019) 14 SCC 411 - Allowed - The direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening the time line fixed under the Statute. Consequently, the direction to acquire the land within one year is set aside. Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315 : (2022) 7 SCC 252

Registration Act, 1908

Registration Act, 1908 - If the Registering Officer under the Act is construed as performing only a mechanical role without any independent mind of his own, then even Government properties may be sold and the documents registered by unscrupulous persons driving the parties to go to civil court. Such an interpretation may not advance the cause of justice. Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : (2022) 8 SCC 210

Registration Act, 1908 - The registration by itself will not bring the curtains down on questions relating to title to the property. (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908 - There is and there can be no dispute about the fact that while the Registering Officer under the Registration Act, 1908, may not be competent to examine whether the executant of a document has any right, title or interest over the property which is the subject matter of the document presented for registration, he is obliged to strictly comply with the mandate of law contained in the various provisions of the Act. (Para 11) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : (2022) 8 SCC 210

Registration Act, 1908; Section 17 (2) (v) - A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future would be exempt from registration under section 17 (2) (v). The test in such a case is whether the document itself creates an interest in a specific immovable property or merely creates a right to obtain another document of title. If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in the person claiming relief, the former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence. (Para 24) K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92 : (2022) 3 SCC 757

Registration Act, 1908; Section 17, 18 - The very purport of the Law of Registration is to usher in and maintain a transparent system of maintaining documents relating to property rights. It puts the world on notice about certain transactions which are compulsorily registrable Section 17 interalia. The law also makes available facility of registering documents at the option of the person (Section 18). (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 18A - Section 18A was enacted only to ensure that the copying process is hastened, as noticed from the Objects and Reasons. It is concerned only with the document which is presented for registration. (Para 32) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - 35 - There is really no need for the production of the original power of attorney, when the document is presented for registration by the person who has executed the document on the strength of the power of attorney. (Para 25) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - Section 32(b) speaks about the representative or assignee of ‘such a person’. The word such a person in Section 32(b) is intended to refer to the persons covered by Section 32(a). (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - Section 32(c) must alone be read with Section 33 of the Act. Thus, when Section 32(c) of the Registration Act declares that a document, whether it is compulsorily or optionally registrable, is to be presented, inter alia, by the agent of such a person, representative or assignee, duly authorised by power of attorney, it must be executed and authenticated in the manner and hereinafter mentioned immediately in the next following section. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - Section 32(c) provides for the agent of ‘such a person’ which necessarily means the persons who are encompassed by Section 32(a). Besides agent of the person covered by Section 32(a), Section 32(c) also takes in the agent of the representative or assignee. Now the words representative or assignee are to be found in Section 32(b). Thus, Section 32(c) deals with agents of the persons covered by Section 32(a) and agents of the representative or assignee falling under Section 32(b). It is in respect of such an agent that there must be due authorisation by a power of attorney, which in turn, is to be executed and authenticated in the manner provided for in Section 33. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - The person, who has actually signed the document or executed the document for the purpose of Section 32(a) does not require a power of attorney to present the document. It may be open to the principal, who has entered obligations under the document, to present the document. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - The word ‘agent’ is to be understood as a person who is authorised to present the document for registration. Such an agent would fall under Section 32(c). Thus, in regard to persons falling in Section 34(3)(c), it would, indeed, be incumbent on the agent, inter alia, to produce the power of attorney as such. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 - When a person empowers another to execute a document and the power of attorney, acting on the power, executes the document, the power of attorney holder can present the document for registration under Section 32(a). Section 32(a) of the Registration Act deals with the person executing a document and also the person claiming under the same. It also provides for persons claiming under a decree or an order being entitled to present a document. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 & 33 - Authentication of PoA does not mean registration - A careful look at Sections 32 and 33 will show that while speaking about PoA, these provisions do not use the word "registration". While Section 32(c) uses the words "executed and authenticated", Section 33(1) uses the words "recognised" and "authenticated". Therefore it is clear that the word "authenticated" is not to be understood to be the same as "registered. (Para 18, 20) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : (2022) 8 SCC 210

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 33 - Section 33 by its very heading provides for power of attorney recognisable for the purpose of Section 32. Section 32(a) cannot be read with Section 33 of the Act. In other words, in a situation, if a document is executed by a person, it will be open to such a person to present the document for registration through his agent. The agency can be limited to authorising the agent for presenting the document for it is such a power of attorney, which is referred to in Section 32(c). It is in regard to a power of attorney holder, who is authorised to present the document for registration to whom Section 33 would apply. (Para 20) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 34 - Appearances under Section 34(1) may be simultaneous or at different times. Section 34(3)(a) enjoins upon the Registering Officer to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. Section 34(3)(b) further makes it his duty to satisfy himself as to the identity of a person’s appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document. It must be understood and read along with Section 32(a). Section 32(a) mandates presentation of the document for registration by some person executing or claiming under the same, inter alia. In respect of a person who presents the document, who claims to have executed the document, not only is he entitled to present the document for registration, in the inquiry under Section 34 34(3)(a) and 3(b), the duty of the Registering Officer extends only to enquire and find that such person is the person who has executed the document he has presented and further be satisfied about the identity of the person. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 and 34 - When it comes to Section 34(3)(c), the Registering Officer is duty-bound in respect of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent to satisfy himself of a right of such a person to so appear. Section 34(3)(c) is relatable to persons covered by Section 32(b) and 32(c) of the Act. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32(c) - In cases where a document is presented for registration by the agent, (i) of the executant; or (ii) of the claimant; or (iii) of the representative or assign of the executant or claimant, the same cannot be accepted for registration unless the agent is duly authorized by a PoA executed and authenticated in the manner provided in the Act. (Para 16) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : (2022) 8 SCC 210

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32, 33 and 34 - The inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not. (Para 25) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 34 - Section 34 provides for the inquiry to be done by the Registering Office before he orders registration. It declares that no document shall be registered under the Act unless the persons executing such document or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the Registering Authority before the time, allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26. This is, however, subject to Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 83 and 89. (Para 22) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 34 - Section 34(3)(c) imposes an obligation on the Registering Officer to satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent. (Para 29) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : (2022) 8 SCC 210

Registration Act, 1908; Section 35 - Section 35 deals with situations in which the Registering Authority refuses the registration. If the registering Authority is satisfied about the identity of the person and that he admits the execution of the document, it may not be a 38 part of the Registrar’s duty to enquire further. (Para 27) Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : 2022 (2) SCALE 521

Registration Act, 1908; Section 35 - The "execution" of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document - In a situation where an individual admits their signature on a document but denies its execution, the Sub-Registrar is bound to refuse registration in accordance with Sections 35(3)(a). (Para 57, 64) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462 : (2022) 7 SCC 1

Registration Act, 1908; Section 35, 73, 74 - While the Sub-Registrar under Section 35(3)(a) has to mandatorily refuse registration when the execution of a document is denied by the person purported to have executed the document, the Registrar is entrusted with the power to conduct an enquiry on an application under Section 73 by following the procedure under Section 74. (Para 35) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462 : (2022) 7 SCC 1

Registration Act, 1908; Section 72 - If a person by whom the document is purported to be executed denies its execution and registration is refused on those grounds, an appeal against the order of the Sub-Registrar denying execution would not be maintainable under Section 72 of the Registration Act. (Para 33) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462 : (2022) 7 SCC 1

Registration Act, 1908; Section 72, 73 - Mis-labelling of an application under Section 73 as an appeal under Section 72 would by itself not vitiate the proceedings before the Registrar. (Para 38) Veena Singh v. District Registrar / Additional Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462 : (2022) 7 SCC 1

Registration Act, 1908; Section 89 - SLP against Madras High Court judgment holding that a registering authority cannot demand stamp duty to keep a copy of a sale certificate on the file of Book No.1 - Dismissed - Issue has been repeatedly settled and a consistent view has been followed for the last 150 years. Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969

Religious Endowment

Religious Endowment - Dedication of a property as religious endowment does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances - Extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time, which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes. (Para 20-25) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Remand

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 : AIR 2022 SC 1609

Remission

Remission - Premature Release - Supreme Court says due consideration of remission policy must be given to all eligible prisoners - Issues slew of directions to UP Govt - Holds that application by eligible prisoner must not be insisted- Benefit of policy which is more beneficial to the prisoner must by given. Rashidul Jafar @ Chota v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 754

Rent Control

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi) - Appeal against Delhi HC judgment which allowed revision petition filed by a tenant under Section 25B(8) of the Act - Allowed - High Court proceeded to allow the revision by treating it like an appeal. Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353 : AIR 2022 SC 1778 : (2022) 6 SCC 30

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 14(1)(e) - Eviction on Bona fide need - There has to be satisfaction on two grounds, namely, (i) the requirement being bona fide and (ii) the non-availability of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Such reasonableness along with suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant - Section 14(1)(e) creates a presumption subject to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller qua bona fide need in favour of the landlord which is obviously rebuttable with some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue- Before a presumption is drawn, the landlord is duty bound to place prima facie material supported by the adequate averments. It is only thereafter, the presumption gets attracted and the onus shifts on the tenant. (Para 12, 15) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353 : AIR 2022 SC 1778 : (2022) 6 SCC 30

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 14(1)(e) and 25B(5) - For availing the leave to defend as envisaged under Section 25B(5), a mere assertion per se would not suffice - The satisfaction of the Rent Controller in deciding on an application seeking leave to defend is obviously subjective. The degree of probability is one of preponderance forming the subjective satisfaction of the Rent Controller. Thus, the quality of adjudication is between a mere moonshine and adequate material and evidence meant for the rejection of a normal application for eviction - The tenant is expected to put in adequate and reasonable materials in support of the facts pleaded in the form of a declaration sufficient to raise a triable issue. (Para 15-17) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353 : AIR 2022 SC 1778 : (2022) 6 SCC 30

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 19 - Right to the dispossessed tenant for repossession if there is a non-compliance on the part of the landlord albeit after eviction, to put the premises to use for the intended purpose - Such a right is available only to a tenant who stood dispossessed on the application filed by the landlord invoking Section 14(1)(e) being allowed. (Para 16) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353 : AIR 2022 SC 1778 : (2022) 6 SCC 30

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 25B - Legislative object - expeditious and effective remedy for a class of landlords, sans the normal procedural route. (Para 17) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353 : AIR 2022 SC 1778 : (2022) 6 SCC 30

Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 25B (8) - Revisional Jurisdiction - The High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding a roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to converting the power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature. (Para 20) Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353 : AIR 2022 SC 1778 : (2022) 6 SCC 30

Rent Control Act, 2001 (Rajasthan) - A suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable- The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit. (Para 28) Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367 : AIR 2022 SC 1813

Rent Control Act, 2001 (Rajasthan) - Appeal against Rajasthan HC judgment which upheld decree passed by a Civil Court in a suit for possession filed by landlord- Dismissed - The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367 : AIR 2022 SC 1813

Rent Control Laws - Jurisdiction of civil courts are excluded from landlord-tenant disputes when they are specifically covered by the provisions of the State Rent Acts, which are given an overriding effect over other laws. (Para 20) Subhash Chander v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 101 : AIR 2022 SC 660

Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab); Section 13 - Demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide requirement of the premises of a landlord. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713

Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab); Section 6 - The demand of rent beyond the agreed rent is not permissible. Surinder Singh Dhillon v. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713

Reorganization Act 2000 (Bihar)

Reorganization Act 2000 (Bihar); Section 73 - Employees who opt for service under a successor State after reorganization, their existing service conditions would not be varied to their disadvantage and would stand protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act. Further, subject to the condition that such person would not be entitled to claim the benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States, such employees would be entitled to claim not only the benefit of reservation in the service of the successor State to which they had opted and were allocated, but they would also be entitled to participate in any subsequent open competition with the benefit of reservation. (Justice Lalit, Para 17) Akhilesh Prasad v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 - The object is to provide an opportunity to the convicts to be repatriated to their country so that they can be closer to their families and have better chances of rehabilitation. (Para 11) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41 : AIR 2022 SC 491

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003; Sections 12, 13 - Agreement between the Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners - The question of adaptation of the sentence can only be when the Central Government is convinced that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius is incompatible with Indian law - Incompatibility with Indian law is with reference to the enforcement of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius being contrary to fundamental laws of India. It is only in case of such an exceptional situation, that it is open the Central Government to adapt the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius to be compatible to a sentence of imprisonment provided for the similar offence. Even in cases where adaptation is being considered by the Central Government, it does not necessarily have to adapt the sentence to be exactly in the nature and duration of imprisonment provided for in the similar offence in India. In this circumstance as well, the Central Government has to make sure that the sentence is made compatible with Indian law corresponding to the nature and duration of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, as far as possible. (Para 15, 16) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41 : AIR 2022 SC 491

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003; Sections 12, 13 - Agreement between the Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners - The sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in this case is binding on India. (Para 15) Union of India v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41 : AIR 2022 SC 491

Representation of People Act, 1950

Representation of People Act, 1950 - Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - The right to contest an election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is a right conferred by a statute - The name of a candidate to be proposed while filling the nomination form. Therefore, an individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act. Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 758

Res Judicata

Res Judicata - Operation of the principles of res judicata in respect to the previous proceeding and judgment discussed. (Para 30) K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92 : (2022) 3 SCC 757

Reservation

Reservation - The reservation for OBC candidates in the AIQ seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses is constitutionally valid. (Para 59) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73 : (2022) 4 SCC 1

Reservation - The reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in unreserved categories - Even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates - Candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so. (Para 8-9) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Sandeep Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 419 : AIR 2022 SC 2975

Reservation - Vacating earlier interim order, the Court refused to stay the G.O. dated 07.11.2020 issued in the State of Tamil Nadu purporting to reserve 50% seats at the Super Specialty level in Government Medical Colleges to in-service doctors - Expressed a prima facie view that States are competent to provide such reservation. N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 294 : AIR 2022 SC 1543

Reservation in IITs

Reservation in IITs - Supreme Court directed the Central government and the Indian Institutes of Technology to follow the reservation policy for admission in research degree programmes and recruitment of faculty members as provided under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 [2019 Act]. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

Reserve Bank of India

Reserve Bank of India - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Disclosure of defaulters list, inspection reports etc in relation to banks - Right to Privacy- Supreme Court expresses prima facie doubts about its 2015 judgment in the case Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N. Mistry which had held that the Reserve Bank of India was obliged to disclose defaulters list, inspection reports, annual statements etc., related to banks under the Right to Information Act - Says the judgment did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy. HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - RBI has wide supervisory jurisdiction over all Banking Institutions in the country- For ‘public interest’ the RBI is empowered to issue any directive to any banking institution, and to prohibit alienation of an NBFC’s property. (Para 8.7) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7 : (2022) 3 SCC 56

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - RBI as was declared is not only vested with curative powers but also preventive powers, as was held in Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. Vs. Union of India. Hence, it is not necessary for the bank to wait for a direction to be violated, and then launch penal actions against the offenders. But the RBI can also issue directions to ensure that the relevant orders/directions are effectively followed. (Para 8.13) Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7 : (2022) 3 SCC 56

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Chapter III B - Chapter III­B of the RBI Act provides a supervisory role for the RBI to oversee the functioning of NBFCs, from the time of their birth (by way of registration) till the time of their commercial death (by way of winding up), all activities of NBFCs automatically come under the scanner of RBI. (Para 6.19, 7) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464 : (2022) 7 SCC 394

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Chapter III B - Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958- Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 - The Kerala Act and the Gujarat Act will have no application to NBFCs registered under the RBI Act and regulated by RBI - Though the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act and the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act not examined, the principles of law laid down herein, would apply equally to these State enactments also. (Para 11.2)) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464 : (2022) 7 SCC 394

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 45JA(1) - The words "relating to" appearing in Section 45­JA(1) can be taken to restrict the power of RBI to give directions, only in relation to the matters mentioned after the words "relating to" - The items mentioned after the words "relating to" can only be taken to be illustrative and not exhaustive. (Para 7.5-7.77) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464 : (2022) 7 SCC 394

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 45L(1)(b) - Power upon the RBI to give directions to NBFCs "relating to the conduct of business by them" - To say that RBI has no power in respect of such an important aspect such as the rate of interest chargeable on the loans, may not be correct. (Para 7.8) Nedumpilli Finance Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464 : (2022) 7 SCC 394

Restitution

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 : AIR 2022 SC 1591

Review Jurisdiction

Review Jurisdiction - Appeal against High Court order allowing review petitions - Allowed - Impugned order, allowing the review application is a cryptic and non-reasoned order - Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference - Remanded. Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306 : (2022) 6 SCC 540

Review Jurisdiction - While exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed. Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on the face of the record is stated and mentioned in the order, the higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with the Court while exercising the review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 4) Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306 : (2022) 6 SCC 540

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Chapter III of the Act incorporates the 'Duties of Appropriate Government, Local Authority and Parents'. Chapter IV, adopting the same rigour imposes 'Responsibilities of the Schools and Teachers'. This significant feature, imposing duties is over and above the Right to Free and Compulsory Education of every child provided in Chapter II of the Act. It is also the duty of the Constitutional Courts to recognize and interpret these Articles in the same spirit and give effect to the provisions of the Act. (Para 4.2) Pragya Higher Secondary School v. National Institute of Open Schooling, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 535

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 13(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 48 - Once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, the landowners cannot revert back on the plea raised that they are entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since repealed. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Om Prakash, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Lapse of acquisition. (Para 9) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : (2022) 7 SCC 796

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Two conditions to be established for acquisition proceedings to lapse - possession not taken and/or compensation not paid - Purchaser has no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings - Since the original land owner never filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the purchaser cannot seek the relief which was not available even to the original land owner. [Para 29, 43, 37] Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476 : AIR 2022 SC 2282 : (2022) 8 SCC 771

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 11 - In a case where on the date of commencement of RFCTLARR Act, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of 2013 Act and they shall be entitled to the compensation only under the 1894 Act - The landowners cannot be permitted to take advantage of the interim order obtained by them due to which the Authority could not declare the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and thereafter contend that in that view of the matter, he/they shall be paid the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, under which a higher compensation will be available to them on determination of the compensation under the Act, 2013. (Para 16-17) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504 : AIR 2022 SC 2558

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 - Observations made in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 summarized - These observations would be aptly applicable while interpreting and considering Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. (Para 12-14) Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority v. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504 : AIR 2022 SC 2558

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 4(1) - Meaning of 'Initiation' for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act - Issuance and publication of Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette of the appropriate Government - When Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act - Only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied. (Para 27, 34) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Jammu and Kashmir - State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 - The provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable with respect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990. (Para 5.2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nisar Ahmed Ganai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 837

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(2) - Subsequent purchaser has no right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings. (Para 7) Delhi Development Authority v. Damini Wadhwa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913 : AIR 2022 SC 5489

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(2) - There cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to the pending litigations. (Para 7.2) Delhi Development Authority v. Damini Wadhwa, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 913 : AIR 2022 SC 5489

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The provisions of the R&R Act, 2013 which replaced the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have for the first time cast obligations upon the State to ensure that resettlement and rehabilitation is provided in addition to compensation. These rehabilitation and resettlement provisions relate not only to a right to employment for at least one member of the displaced family but also other monetary and tangible benefits, such as land for construction of houses, cash assistance for construction; transportation cost; provision for temporary displacement; annuity and/or cash payment in lieu of employment benefits, etc. Furthermore, by provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate provisions for the kind of public amenities which have to be provided, such as public health benefits, schools, community centres, roads and other basic necessities, have been obligated. All these are in furtherance of the displaced and the larger social justice obligations cast upon the State. (Para 43) Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916 : AIR 2022 SC 5723

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 108 - Wherever there are existing provisions that are more beneficial or provide better benefits to displaced persons, such families and individuals have the choice or option to prefer either such policy or local law or the provisions of the R&R Act. (Para 42) Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 916 : AIR 2022 SC 5723

Right to Information Act, 2005

Right to Information Act, 2005 - Discussions of Supreme Court collegium -Discussions of collegium are not required to be disclosed in public domain under the RTI Act - Whatever is discussed shall not be in the public domain - Petition seeking details of the collegium meeting of December 12, 2018 dismissed - Petitioner relied on news reports about the statements given by a former collegium member that certain decisions were finalized in the said collegium meeting, which were reversed after his retirement. (Para 5, 5.1) Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

Right to Privacy

Right to Privacy - In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry, the RBI is entitled to issue directions to the petitioners/Banks to disclose information even with regard to the individual customers of the Bank. In effect, it may adversely affect the individuals' fundamental right to privacy. (Para 39) HDFC Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 811

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 - Furthermore, the disabled are entitled to the fundamental right of equality enshrined in Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 including the right to carry out any occupation, profession, the right to life under Article 21, which has now been interpreted to mean the right to live with dignity, which has to be interpreted liberally in relation to the disabled. (Para 30) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - A person appointed under quota for Persons With Disabilities was allowed to choose his place of posting as per a beneficial circular issued by the Government- Later, in the state seniority list, his seniority was downgraded for having opted for transfer - The State relied on a provision in the service rules as per which a person will choose seniority within a district on transfer as per his request - The Court held that provision cannot alter state wise seniority - Also, the Court held that the benefit given to disabled persons as per the circular cannot be rendered otiose by imposing conditions. Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - One of the hindrances / disadvantages faced by the physically disabled persons is the inability to move freely and easily. In consideration of the obstacles encountered by persons with disabilities, the State has issued the said notification/circular dated 20th July 2000 for posting disabled persons to places of their choice, to the extent feasible. The object of this benefit to the physically disabled is to, inter alia, enable the physically disabled to be posted at a place where assistance may readily be available. The distance from the residence may be a relevant consideration to avoid commuting long distances. The benefit which has been given to the disabled through the Circular/Government Order cannot be taken away by subjecting the exercise of the right to avail of the benefit on such terms and conditions, as would render the benefit otiose. (Para 31) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The marginalization of the disabled/handicapped is a human rights issue, which has been the subject matter of deliberations and discussion all over the world. There is increasing global concern to ensure that the disabled are not sidelined on account of their disability. (Para 26) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - UGC to ensure that the guidelines inspection of educational institutions to ensure implementation of RPWD Act are finalized. Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Riot Victims

Riot Victims - Supreme Court issues a slew of directions to the State for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of riot victims who have not yet been compensated - Also issues directions for revival of dormant riot cases. Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910

Rule of Law

Rule of Law - Nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law - Rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, the State often has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, and therefore, not tarnished the basic principle of the rule of law. (Para 14) Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347 : (2022) 7 SCC 508

S

Sale of Goods Act, 1930

Sale of Goods Act, 1930; Section 2(7) - Vehicles are goods within the meaning of Section 2(7) of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and they carry implied conditions as to their fitness. (Para 7) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399 : 2022 (6) SCALE 587

Schedule Castes and Backward Classes

Schedule Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006 (Punjab); Section 7 - De­reservation for the reserved vacancy by the appointing authority is restricted. The said de­reservation may be possibly directed by the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes if it is expedient in public interest after recording satisfaction for such de­reservation. In the said contingency the department shall pass an order assigning those reasons. Thus, in the context of 2006 Act also the de­reservation or interchangeability may be possible with a rigour to exercise such power by the department, namely; Department of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and not by appointing authority. (Para 20) Mandeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 262 : (2022) 5 SCC 800

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - Contention that only Special Court could take cognizance of offences under the Atrocities Act rejected. Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396 : AIR 2022 SC 2044

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - SLP against Allahabad HC judgment which refused to quash order summoning the accused- Dismissed - The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396 : AIR 2022 SC 2044

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - Appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of the said community alone. If any person other than a member of the reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an infringement of the rights of the genuinely deserving members of the said community - Even the applicants applying under the general categories could be adversely affected. (Para 9) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237 : 2022 (4) SCALE 267

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - The mere fact that the Law Giver has used the word 'voidable', cannot, in the context, detract from the gravity of the matter. The matter is not to be judged from the need for an act by the employer - In a situation where the law provides that the appointment is voidable, an act of the employer seeking to avoid the appointment is all that is required. (Para 9, 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237 : 2022 (4) SCALE 267

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to interfere with order terminating services of appellant after finding that she does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community to which she applied and was given appointment - Disposed of - To allow an usurper to continue being a palpable illegality and a constitutional sin, in the context, action by the competent authority terminating the services is perfectly valid - However, amounts sought to be recovered shall not be recovered from the appellant. Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237 : 2022 (4) SCALE 267

SEBI

SEBI - Regulators should act fairly - SEBI is a regulator and has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties. Being a quasi­judicial body, the constitutional mandate of SEBI is to act fairly, in accordance with the rules prescribed by law. The role of a Regulator is to deal with complaints and parties in a fair manner, and not to circumvent the rule of law for getting successful convictions. There is a substantive duty on the Regulators to show fairness, in the form of public co­operation and deference. (Para 42) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659 : AIR 2022 SC 3690 : (2022) 10 SCC 181

SEBI - Regulators should avoid frivolous criminal actions against large corporations - Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions, should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts ought to act as gate keepers for the same. Initiating frivolous criminal actions against large corporations, would give rise to adverse economic consequences for the country in the long run. Therefore, the Regulator must be cautious in initiating such an action and carefully weigh each factor. (Para 29) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659 : AIR 2022 SC 3690 : (2022) 10 SCC 181

SEBI - Supreme Court directs Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to disclose to Reliance Industries Ltd the documents relied on by the SEBI to filed a criminal complaint against RIL over alleged irregularities in a share transaction in 1994. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 659 : AIR 2022 SC 3690 : (2022) 10 SCC 181

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) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180 : AIR 2022 SC 1153 : (2022) 8 SCC 162

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - 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) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180 : AIR 2022 SC 1153 : (2022) 8 SCC 162

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - 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) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180 : AIR 2022 SC 1153 : (2022) 8 SCC 162

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - 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) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180 : AIR 2022 SC 1153 : (2022) 8 SCC 162

SEBI circular on standardisation of procedure for debenture trustees has retroactive application. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajkumar Nagpal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 738 : AIR 2022 SC 5180

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 - Onus is on SEBI to prove communication of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information. (Para 32) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397 : (2022) 9 SCC 425

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015; Regulation 3 - Regulation 3 does not create a deeming fiction in law. Hence, it is only through producing cogent materials (letters, emails, witnesses etc.) that the said communication of UPSI could be proved and not by deeming the communication to have happened owing to the alleged proximity between the parties. (Para 40) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397 : (2022) 9 SCC 425

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order passed by SEBI restricting the respondent-company from accessing the capital market for one year etc - Dismissed - The general observations of the Tribunal that there is a right of cross-examination set aside. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : 2022 (5) SCALE 340

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 - There is a right of disclosure of the relevant material. However, such a right is not absolute and is subject to other considerations as indicated under paragraph 62(v) of the judgment in T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180. In this judgment, there is no specific discussion on the issue of a right to cross-examination but the broad principles laid down therein are sufficient guidance for the Tribunal to follow. (Para 35) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : 2022 (5) SCALE 340

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 12(1) - Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 - Stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part III annexed to Regulation 10 of the Regulations, 1992 in reference to each certificate of registration from SEBI in terms of the computation prescribed under Circular dated 28th March, 2002 and fee is to be paid as a guiding principle by the stock broker which is in conformity with the scheme of Regulations 1992 - After the expiry of five financial years from the date of initial registration, in reference to the stock exchange, the fee has to be deposited for the purpose of sixth financial year to keep his registration in force. (Para 47-48) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. National Stock Exchange Members Association, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 840 : AIR 2022 SC 5213

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15T - It is the duty of the first court of appeal to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties on both, the questions of law as well as questions of fact and then decide the issue by providing adequate reasons for its findings. (Para 24) Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397 : (2022) 9 SCC 425

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15Z - Scope and ambit of Statutory appeal against Securities Appellate Tribunal orders to Supreme Court - The Supreme Court will exercise jurisdiction only when there is a question of law arising for consideration from the decision of the Tribunal. A question of law may arise when there is an erroneous construction of the legal provisions of the statute or the general principles of law. In such cases, the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of Section 15Z may substitute its decision on any question of law that it considers appropriate. (Para 20.1) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : 2022 (5) SCALE 340

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Section 15Z, 15T - Question of law - Not every interpretation of the law would amount to a question of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15Z. The Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Section 15T, apart from acting as an appellate authority on fact, also interprets the Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder and systematically evolves a legal regime. These very principles are applied consistently for structural evolution of the sectorial laws. This freedom to evolve and interpret laws must belong to the Tribunal to subserve the Regulatory regime for clarity and consistency. These are policy and functional considerations which the Supreme Court will keep in mind while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 15Z. (Para 20.2) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mega Corporation Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : 2022 (5) SCALE 340

Secondment Agreements

Secondment Agreements - explained - Employees of overseas entities are deputed to the host entity (Indian associate) on the latter's request to meet its specific needs and requirements of the Indian associate - during the arrangement, the secondees work under the control and supervision of the Indian company and in relation to the work responsibilities of the Indian affiliate - social security laws of the home country (of the secondees) and business considerations result in payroll retention and salary payment by the foreign entity, which is claimed as reimbursement from the host entity - in the event the overseas entity is treated as the employer, the arrangement would be treated as service by the overseas entity and taxed. [Para 34] C.C. C.E. & S.T., Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd.,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : AIR 2022 SC 2450

Secularism & Fraternity

Secularism & Fraternity - The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and the integrity of the country is the guiding principle enshrined in the Preamble. There cannot be fraternity unless members of community drawn from different religions or castes of the country are able to live in harmony. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11E - Provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act of 1944 - secured creditor will have priority over the dues of the Central Excise Department. (Para 43, 44, 47) Punjab National Bank v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 208 : AIR 2022 SC 1475 : (2022) 7 SCC 260

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1) - It is open to the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can appoint an advocate commissioner to assist him/her in execution of the order passed under Section 14(1) - Advocate must be regarded as an officer of the court and, in law, subordinate to the concerned CMM/DM within their jurisdiction. (Para 44) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : AIR 2022 SC 1325 : (2022) 10 SCC 286

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1) - Being an officer of the court and appointed by the CMM/DM, the acts done by the Advocate Commissioner would receive immunity under Section 14(3) of the 2002 Act — as an officer authorised by the CMM/DM - There must be a presumption that if an advocate is appointed as commissioner for execution of the orders passed by the CMM/DM under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act, that responsibility and duty will be discharged honestly and in accordance with rules of law. (Para 42) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : AIR 2022 SC 1325 : (2022) 10 SCC 286

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1A) - Officer subordinate - "Functional subordination" test applied - There is intrinsic de jure functional subordinate relationship between the CMM/DM and the advocate being an officer of the court - It does not follow that the advocate so appointed needs to be on the rolls in the Office of the CMM/DM or in public service. (Para 42) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : AIR 2022 SC 1325 : (2022) 10 SCC 286

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - Taking of possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity is a ministerial act. (Para 28) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : AIR 2022 SC 1325 : (2022) 10 SCC 286

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - While entrusting the act of taking possession of the secured assets consequent to the order passed under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act to any officer subordinate to him, the CMM/DM ought to exercise prudence in appointing such person who will be capable of executing the orders passed by him. Merely because he has power to appoint "any" officer subordinate to him, it would not permit him to appoint a peon or clerk, who is incapable of handling the situation. (Para 30) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : AIR 2022 SC 1325 : (2022) 10 SCC 286

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13 (8) - By paying the highest bid amount / reserve price, the borrower cannot be discharged of its liability of the outstanding due to be paid to the bank - Unless and until he was ready to deposit / pay the entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with the secured creditor, the borrower cannot be discharged from the entire liability outstanding. (Para 7.1) Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253 : AIR 2022 SC 1209 : (2022) 5 SCC 168

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court overlooked the fact that there was no independent instrument of PoA and that in any case, the power of sale of a secured asset flowed out of the provisions of the Securitisation Act, 2002 and not out of an independent instrument of PoA. Section 2(zd) of the Securitisation Act, 2002 defines a 'secured creditor' to mean and include an Asset Reconstruction Company. The appellant has acquired the financial assets of OBC in terms of Section 5(1)(b) of the Securitisation Act, 2002. Therefore, under sub­section (2) of Section 5 of the Securitisation Act, 2002, the appellant shall be deemed to be the lender and all the rights of the Bank vested in them. (Para 9) Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415 : 2022 (6) SCALE 657

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - The District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act - Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can exercise powers under Section 14. (Para 9-12) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : AIR 2022 SC 4820

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - Step to be taken by the CMM/DM under Section 14 is a ministerial step. While disposing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi ­judicial function or application of mind would require -The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the correctness of the information given in the application and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of secured assets. (Para 8) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : AIR 2022 SC 4820

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 (1A) - it is open to the CMM/DM to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor under Section 14(1A) of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 6.2) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634 : AIR 2022 SC 4820

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 17 - The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment - SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. (Para 12) Bank of Baroda v. Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 671 : AIR 2022 SC 3803

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - The powers exercisable by CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial step and Section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets - Once all the requirements under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner- At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before Debts Recovery Tribunal. (Para 5.2) Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 799 : AIR 2022 SC 4756

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - It is true that the secured creditor is under an obligation to undertake the exercise and cross­check the description of the mortgaged property at the stage when the initial proceedings under Section 13(2) are initiated or in the later consequential proceedings, but at the same time, mere typographical error due to inadvertence which has not caused any prejudice to the borrowers, that in itself could not be considered to be the ground to annul the process held by the secured creditor which, in our view, is in due compliance with the requirement as contemplated under the provisions of Rules, 2002. (Para 37) Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 34 - Section 34 shall be applicable only in a case where the Debt Recovery Tribunal and/or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to decide the matter under the SARFAESI Act. The plaintiff was not challenging the sale/sale certificate. (Para 5.2) Leelamma Mathew v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 8 - Duty of the authorized officer to take all precautions before putting the secured asset to sell - Before effecting sale of the immovable property (secured assets) the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor and fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act the seller was bound to disclose any buyer any material defect in the property of which the buyer is not aware and which the buyer could not ordinarily discover. (Para 5.4) Leelamma Mathew v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rules 8, 9 - The sale would be complete only when the auction purchaser makes the entire payment and the authorised officer, exercising the power of sale, shall issue a certificate of sale of the property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to the said Rules - The sale certificate does not require registration and the sale process is complete on issuance of the sale certificate. (Para 32-33) Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496 : AIR 2022 SC 2687 : (2022) 8 SCC 516