Registration Act, 1908 Registration Act, 1908 - Effect of Tamil Nadu amendment by which Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act has been inserted which makes agreement to sell immovable property valued above Rs 100 compulsorily registrable - Held, the amendment will not affect proviso to Section 49, which allows unregistered sale agreements to be received in evidence. (Para 12, 13)...
Registration Act, 1908
Registration Act, 1908 - Effect of Tamil Nadu amendment by which Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act has been inserted which makes agreement to sell immovable property valued above Rs 100 compulsorily registrable - Held, the amendment will not affect proviso to Section 49, which allows unregistered sale agreements to be received in evidence. (Para 12, 13) R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : AIR 2023 SC 1895 : (2023) 2 SCR 834
Registration Act, 1908; Proviso to Section 49 - An unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. (Para 12, 13) R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : AIR 2023 SC 1895 : (2023) 2 SCR 834
Registration Act, 1908; Section 17 - High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to alter or amend registered lease deed. (Para 18) Gwalior Development Authority v. Bhanu Pratap Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 340 : AIR 2023 SC 2090 : (2023) 3 SCR 498
Registration Act, 1908 - 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 - production of the original power of attorney is not an indispensable requirement to establish the validity of execution of a sale deed. [Nagarathna; J., Para 23] Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29 : AIR 2023 SC 506 : (2023) 8 SCC 410
Registration Act, 1908; Section 33(1)(c) - If the principal at the time of execution of the PoA does not reside in India, a PoA executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government shall be valid - when title is claimed on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed by the original owner on the strength of which execution of sale deed is takes place, the conditions provided under Section 33(1)(c) of the Registration Act are required to be strictly complied with. [Shah; J., Para 6, 7] Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29 : AIR 2023 SC 506 : (2023) 8 SCC 410
Registration Act, 1908; Section 49 - an unregistered lease deed (which is otherwise compulsorily registrable) can be admitted in evidence to show the 'nature and character of possession', only when the 'nature and character of possession' is not the main term of the lease and is not the primary dispute before the Court for adjudication. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827
Registration Act, 1908; Section 60 - Statutory Presumption - Only in a case where the execution of the Power of Attorney is as per Section 32 read with Section 33(1)(c) of the Registration Act, there shall be statutory presumption. [Shah; J., Para 7] Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29 : AIR 2023 SC 506 : (2023) 8 SCC 410
Registration Act, 1961 (West Bengal) - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court where it was held that the Registrar of Society can only cancel registration granted to a society under the Act, 1961, by exercising a power of procedural review. The High Court was of the view that there is a vital difference between a power of substantive review and procedural review, and the former was not available to the Registrar while deciding an application for cancellation of registration. The High Court observed that the Registrar had proceeded to exercise his power of substantive review, that too without reference to the application for registration that succeeded, while passing the cancellation order. Chen Khoi Kui v. Liang Miao Sheng, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 796
Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules, 2022
Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules 2022; Rule 26B - Submission of the Adhar number is not mandatory for electoral rolls. The Election Commission of India has given an undertaking to the Supreme Court that it will issue "appropriate clarificatory changes" in Forms 6 and 6B (for Registration in E-Roll) which required details of Aadhaar number for the purpose of electoral roll authentication for new voters. (Para 2) G. Niranjan v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 805
Remission
The State Government should decide on remission applications without unnecessary delays, following the government's policy. Chain Singh v. State of Chattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 895
Rent Control & Eviction
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 - Though eviction suit can't be filed before 5 years of tenancy, the Supreme Court affirms the decree as it was passed after 38 years. Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525 : AIR 2023 SC 3240 : (2023) 7 SCC 720
Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act - Late payment of rent despite direction of revenue court valid ground for eviction. K. Chinnammal v. L.R. Eknath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437 : AIR 2023 SC 3534 : (2023) 6 SCR 831
Delhi Rent Control - Improper description of property in application no ground to set aside possession order under Section 25-B(8). Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : AIR 2023 SC 3067 : (2023) 4 SCR 493
UP Urban Building Act - Tenant can deposit rent in court only on the landlord's refusal to accept. Man Singh v. Shamim Ahmad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 290 : AIR 2023 SC 1796 : (2023) 3 SCR 301
Subletting by tenant is impermissible under Bombay Rent Control Act unless contract allows it. Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 228 : (2023) 2 SCR 1135
Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi)
Rent Control Act, 1958 (Delhi); Section 25B(8) - When the Rent Controller permits eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement by the Landlord after perusing facts and evidence on record, then such order cannot be set aside by the High Court in review under Section 25-B(8) upon the ground that the description of property was not proper in the application. Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : AIR 2023 SC 3067 : (2023) 4 SCR 493
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay)
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay) - In the ordinary course and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, unless the contract itself permits sub-letting, it shall not be lawful, after coming into operation of the Act of 1947, for a tenant to sub-let the premises let out to him or to assign or transfer in any manner his interest therein - The very act of execution of the assignment document was sufficient in itself to complete the breach of the lease condition and the statutory mandate and did not require anything further. Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale v. Janardan Subajirao Wide, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 228 : (2023) 2 SCR 1135
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951
Decide on invoking Delimitation Act to ensure proportionate representation for SCs/STs in legislature: Supreme Court directs centre. Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1074
Representation of People Act, 1951 - Democracy being an essential feature of the Constitution and the right to vote being a statutory right, the voter has the right to know about the full background of a candidate. (Para 28) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
Representation of People Act, 1951 - the right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. (Para 27) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 33A, 33B - Disclosure of past criminal antecedents of every candidate - Providing information is vital for a vibrant and functioning democracy. (Para 13) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
Representation of People Act, 1951; Sections 81, 84 r/w. 100(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) & (iv) – the appellant questions judgment and order of the High Court dismissing an application which sought rejection of the election petition – Held, If the appellant's contentions were to be accepted, there would be a denial of a full-fledged trial, based on the acknowledgement that material facts were not suppressed. Whether the existence of a criminal case, where a charge has not been framed, in relation to an offence which does not possibly carry a prison sentence, or a sentence for a short spell in prison, and whether conviction in a case, where penalty was imposed, are material facts, are contested. This court would be pre-judging that issue because arguendo if the effect of withholding some such information is seen as insignificant, by itself, that would not negate the possibility of a conclusion based on the cumulative impact of withholding of facts and non-compliance with statutory stipulations (which is to be established in a trial). For these reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. (Para 28) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563
Representation of the People Act 1951; Section 62 - Supreme Court rejects challenge to Section 62(5) RP Act which denies prisoners right to vote. Aditya Prasanna Bhattacharya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 407
Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Whether a non-Tribal has the right to vote in a Scheduled Area – Held, every eligible voter is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of a constituency, in which he is ordinarily residing. Therefore, any person eligible to vote who is ordinarily residing in the Scheduled Area has a right to vote, even if he is a non-Tribal. (Para 16) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Sections 123, 83(1) (a) - Failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition. When allegations of corrupt practice are made against an elected representative in an election petition, the proceedings virtually become quasi-criminal. Further, the outcome of such a petition is very serious, which can oust a popularly elected representative of the people. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts concerning the ground of corrupt practice, must result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold itself. (Para 13) Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471
Representation of the People's Act, 1951 - An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2023 SC 2366
Representation of the People's Act, 1951 - In order to get an election declared as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election petitioner must aver that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or any rules or orders made under the Act, the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, was materially affected. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2023 SC 2366
Representation of the People's Act, 1951 - Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. Material facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2023 SC 2366
Representation of the People's Act, 1951 - The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2023 SC 2366
Representation of the People's Act, 1951 - The material facts must be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute the cause of action, that is every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the judgement of court. Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2023 SC 2366
Representation of the People's Act, 1951; Section 83(1)(a) - Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. If material facts are not stated in an Election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2023 SC 2366
Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 29A - Not expressed anything on the Constitution of the Party - Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) and the present order shall not affect the pending proceedings before the High Court of Delhi, which is reported to be pending against the order passed by the ECI. (Para 7) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; Section 33(7) - Challenge to provision allowing candidates to contest from two seats rejected - Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative Assembly is a matter of legislative policy. It is a matter pertaining to legislative policy since, ultimately, Parliament determines whether political democracy in the country is furthered by granting a choice such as is made available by Section 33(7) of the Act of 1951. A candidate who contests from more than one seat may do so for a variety of reasons not just bearing on the uncertainty which the candidate perceives of an election result. There are other considerations which weigh in the balance in determining whether this would restrict the course of electoral democracy in the country. This is a matter where Parliament is legitimately entitled to make legislative choices and enact or amend legislation. The Law Commission and the Election Commission may at the material time have expressed certain viewpoints. Whether they should be converted into a mandate of the law depends on the exercise of Parliamentary sovereignty in enacting legislation. Absent any manifest arbitrariness of the provision so as to implicate the provisions of Article 14 or a violation of Article 19, it would not be possible for this Court to strike down the provision as unconstitutional. (Para 12) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 84
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; Rule 39AA - Constitutional validity of - Open Ballot System in Rajya Sabha Elections - Information regarding casting of votes - The petitioner has sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 39AA on the ground that it is (i) ultra vires Article 80(4) of the Constitution; (ii) violative of Article 14; and (iii) contrary to the provisions of Section 123(2) of the 1951 Act - The challenge must fail in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Kuldip Nayar v Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1 - The provision was inserted specifically to prevent cross-voting in elections to the Council of States. In this backdrop, there is no merit in the challenge. [Para 11 – 16] Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Proviso to Section 33 – Constitutional validity of - Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination - The proviso stipulates that a candidate who is not set up by a recognized political party shall not be deemed to be duly nominated for election unless the nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers who are electors of the constituency. This lies purely in the realm of legislative policy. There is nothing per se discriminatory in the provision. Parliament is entitled to regulate the manner in which nomination papers should be presented and the requirements for a valid nomination. [Para 18 – 20] Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254
Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 83(1)(c) - The requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory. It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit - In this case, the election petition contained an affidavit in which the election petitioner has sworn on oath that the paragraphs where he has raised allegations of corrupt practice are true to the best of his knowledge. Though there is no separate and an independent affidavit with respect to the allegations of corrupt practice, there is substantial compliance of the requirements under Section 83(1)(c). (Para 14-15) Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705
Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 – Criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark - Trial Judge has awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years. Except the admonition given to the appellant by the Apex Court no other reason has been assigned while imposing the maximum sentence of two years. It is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years, the provisions of Section 8(3) of the RP Act have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act would not have been attracted. Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years. (Para 5, 6) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598 : (2024) 2 SCC 595
Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 – Defamation - Stay of Conviction - Though the Appellate Court and the High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, the reasons for maximum sentence have not even been touched in their orders. No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. May be, had the judgment of the Apex Court in the contempt proceedings come prior to the speech, the appellant would have been more careful and exercised a degree of restraint while making the alleged remarks, which were found to be defamatory by the Trial Judge. (Para 7, 8) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598 : (2024) 2 SCC 595
Representation of the People Act, 1950; Section 8(3) - the ramification of Section 8 (3) of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects and particularly that no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge for imposing the maximum sentence which has the effect of incurring disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act, the order of conviction needs to be stayed, pending hearing of the present appeal. Therefore, stayed the order of conviction during the pendency of the present appeal. (Para 9, 10) Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598 : (2024) 2 SCC 595
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Section 8 (3) - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 422, 324, 342, 307, 506 r/w. 149 - Stay of Conviction - High Court has considered only one aspect of the matter, namely, that the first respondent being a Member of the Parliament and a representative of his constituency, any order of suspension of membership which is consequential upon conviction would cause a fresh election to be conducted in so far as the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is concerned which would result in enormous expenses. The said aspect need not have been the only aspect which should have weighed with the High Court. The High Court ought to have considered the application seeking the suspension of conviction in its proper perspective covering all aspects bearing in mind the relevant judgments rendered by this Court and in accordance with law. On this short ground alone, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the application filed by the first respondent seeking suspension of conviction. In order to avoid a situation where there would be vacuum created till the said application is considered by the High Court, the benefit of the order impugned shall be extended to the first respondent herein for the said period by way of an interim arrangement. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690
Reservation
SC/ST/OBC reservation will be given in temporary appointments which last for 45 days or more : Centre tells Supreme Court. Md Imran Ahmad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 854
'Misconceived' : Supreme Court dismisses PIL to cancel IIT faculty appointments from 2008 for allegedly violating reservation norms. Dr. Sachchida Nand Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 544
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 26(2) - The decision taken by the Central Government to demonetise is to be based on the recommendation of the Central Board of RBI - RBI is the sole repository of power for the management of currency; it plays a pivotal role in management and issuance of currency notes; dealing with the management and regulation of currency; and in evolving the monetary policy - provision of recommendation by Central Board of RBI acts as a safeguard. [Para 202 - 206] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Central Government may take recourse to the power to demonetise taking into consideration several factors - these factors must have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. [Para 151] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - does not provide for excessive delegation as there is a safeguard that the power can be used only upon recommendation of RBI - though legislature cannot give up its power in favour of another, in view of the multifarious activities of a welfare State, it cannot work out all the details, thus making it necessarily to delegate the same to the executive - Parliament and State Legislatures may not have specialised knowledge - technical and situational intricacies are better left to expert executive bodies and specialist public servants - mere possibility or eventuality of abuse of delegated powers in the absence of any evidence supporting such claim cannot be a ground to strike down a provision - it can be struck down only if it satisfies the 'policy and guideline' test. [Para 186, 188, 190, 193] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Essential Ingredients - i) on recommendation of the Central Board of RBI - ii) the Central Government by notification in the Gazette of India; iii) may declare any series of bank notes of any denomination to cease to be legal tender; iv) with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification; v) to such extent as may be specified in the notification. [Para 15.6] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - if demonetisation of any bank note takes place under the provision of the Act, it is only by issuance of a notification in the Gazette of India and not by any other method - only the Central Board of RBI is the initiator of the process of demonetisation - the provision has a restricted operation, either the Central Government accepts the recommendation of the Central Board and issue a gazette notification, or refuse to accept the recommendation [Para 15.17, 15.18 and 15.25] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - on earlier two occasions, when RBI was not in favour of demonetisation, the Government resorted to promulgation of ordinances to demonetise currency notes - merely because on two earlier occasions the Central Government had enacted law to demonetise, does not mean the the word “any'' can be given a restrictive meaning - “any” would mean “all”. [Para 152 - 158] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - on recommendation of Central Board of RBI, Central Government may declare “any” series of bank notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender with effect from a specific date - the word “any” must be interpreted as “all”, otherwise it would lead to an anomaly - e.g. if there are 20 series of a particular denomination, the Centre cannot demonetise 19 series and leave behind one series to continue as legal tender - an interpretation which nullifies the purpose for which power is bestowed would be contrary to the principle of purposive interpretation. [Para 144 - 150] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Scheme of the Act envisages that the issuance of bank notes, various denomination of bank notes, design and form of bank notes are to be specified by the Central Government 'only' on recommendation of the Central Board. [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - the decision-making process is not flawed in law - the duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality - it ought to determine whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would reach or abused its powers - it is not concerned with the manner in which the decision was taken. [Para 215, 226] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - two requirements of the provision a) recommendation by the Central Board and b) decision of the Central Government - dictionary meaning of “recommend” is “to advise as to a course of action” or “to praise or command” - the word recommendation ought to be construed in the context in which it is used - in the present context “recommendation” would mean a consultative process between the Central Board and the Central Government - it is to be considered by the Court whether each of the party had disclosed all relevant facts and factors to each other for due consideration. [Para 239 - 245] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - when Central Board recommends demonetisation it is only a particular series of bank notes of a particular denomination as recommend under Section 26(2) - the word 'any' cannot be read as 'all' - if 'any' is to be read as 'all', it would provided unguided discretion to the Central Board. [Para 15.13] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Res Judicata
No party should be vexed twice in a litigation for one and the same cause: supreme court on 'constructive res judicata'. Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806 : AIR 2023 SC 4698
Only fundamental determinations hit by 'res judicata', not incidental or collateral findings. Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590 : AIR 2023 SC 3736
Review
Observations by coordinate Bench no ground to review a Judgment: Supreme Court lays down 8 principles on scope of review. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939 : AIR 2023 SC 5636 : (2024) 2 SCC 362
Applications filed for 'clarification/addition' while evading the recourse of review, should be discouraged. Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599
Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging rule permitting disposal of review petitions without oral arguments. P.T. Mohan v. Registrar Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 379
Review provision is not to scrutinize the correctness of a decision. Pancham Lal Pandey v. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 111 : AIR 2023 SC 948
The provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed. (Para 15) Pancham Lal Pandey v. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 111 : AIR 2023 SC 948
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Quality education cannot be achieved if a student is penalised based on their religion. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 - When the object of the RTE Act is to provide quality education, unless there is an effort made to inculcate the importance of constitutional values in the students, especially the core values of equality, secularism and fraternity, there cannot be any quality education. There cannot be quality education if, in a school, a student is sought to be penalised only on the ground that he belongs to a particular community. Thus, there is a prima facie failure on the part of the State to comply with the mandatory obligations under the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843
Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016
Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 - Supreme Court passed guidelines to ensure better accessibility for candidates with disability to appear in CLAT examination. Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 349
Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The Supreme Court directed all State Governments to comply with the provisions of the RPwD Act expeditiously before September 30, 2023 also to appoint Chief Commissioners for persons with disabilities by August 31, 2023. (Para 5) Seema Girija v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; Section 33 and 34 - Reasonable accommodation ought not to open gates for demands by those benefitting other kinds of horizontal reservation, for reservation in promotional vacancies in public services. (Para 14, S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - In cases even of specified disabilities, in all cases the standard of 40% may result in “one size fit all” norm which will exclude eligible candidates. The Union, therefore, shall consider the steps to mitigate such anomalies, because a lower extent of disabilities bar benefits and at the same time render them functional, whereas higher extent of disability would entitle benefits, but also result in denying them the benefit of reservation. The National Commission and the Central Government are directed to consider the problem and work out suitable solutions to enable effective participation. (Para 13) Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 841
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - MBBS Admission in PwD Quota - Disability Assessment Report - Persons with disabilities should not be excluded from MBBS courses merely on the basis of a quantitative assessment of their disabilities. The assessment of the disabilities must have a cogent reasoning as to how such candidates will be unable to pursue the medical courses. (Para 7) Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 841
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 – Award passed during covid lockdown – Held, Fair opportunity of hearing must be given to claimant. Award passed in respect of the acquired land is set aside. (Para 10) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - It is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are affected. This requires that the interested person is given an effective opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation to the prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative mandate. (Para 8) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – the Collector is obligated to hold an inquiry on certain relevant aspects, including the objections submitted by the interested persons, and pass an award concerning: (a) the exact area of the acquired land; (b) the compensation as may be determined under Section 27 of the Act; and (c) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. (Para 5) Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Once the land owner refuses to accept the amount of compensation offered by the Acquiring Body, thereafter it will not be open for the original land owner to pray for lapse of acquisition on the ground that the compensation has not been paid. State of Gujarat v Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 247 : (2023) 2 SCR 696
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Is the overruling of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) by a Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) a ground to review judgments which followed Pune Municipal Corporation? Supreme Court 2- judge bench delivers split verdict - Justice MR Shah holds subsequent overruling is a ground to review - Justice BV Nagarathna disagrees. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36 : AIR 2023 SC 415 : (2023) 1 SCR 683
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36 : AIR 2023 SC 415 : (2023) 1 SCR 683
Right to Information Act, 2005
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Copies of the chargesheet and the relevant documents along with the charge-sheet do not fall within Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. (Para 6) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52 : AIR 2023 SC 615
Right to Information Act, 2006; Section 4 - Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time - Power and accountability go hand in hand. While declaring that all citizens shall have the 'right to information' under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative 'duty' in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4. The core of the right created under Section 3 in reality rests on the duty to perform statutory obligations. Public accountability is a crucial feature that governs the relationship between 'duty bearers' and 'right holders. (Para 22-27) Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665
Route March
Supreme Court dismisses Tamil Nadu Govt's plea challenging HC Judgment lifting conditions for RSS route march. Phanindra Reddy, IAS v. G. Subramanian, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 295
Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 (Assam)
Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 - The Supreme Court struck down the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 which permitted diploma holders in Medicine and Rural Health Care to treat certain common diseases, perform minor procedures, and prescribe certain drugs. Upholding a 2014 Gauhati High Court judgment declaring the Act to be unconstitutional and ultra vires, held, the Assam Act seeks to regulate such aspects of medical education that are within the exclusive domain of the Parliament, and is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the state legislature lacks the necessary competence. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721
Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 - The three-year diploma course was introduced by the Assam government almost two decades ago, to strengthen the rural healthcare infrastructure by producing a cadre of barefoot doctors allowed to practice modern medicine, albeit to a very limited extent. Therefore, the Assam Act, enacted on the strength of Entry 25 of List III, sought not only to introduce a new force in the field of medical education but also to regulate the profession of successful candidates. Further, the regulatory authority constituted under the act was imbued with the power to prescribe the minimum standards of the course, as well as other particulars such as the duration, curriculum, pedagogy, and examination. The impugned act also authorised the state government to grant permission for the establishment of medical institutes. These would be covered within the legislative field of coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions under Entry 66 of the Union List. Therefore, the bench took objection to the attempt by the state government to encroach into the exclusive domain of the Parliament. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721
Sale
Condition of right to repurchase in sale deed not personal unless expressly stated; can be assigned. Indira Devi v. Veena Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 495 : AIR 2023 SC 3232 : (2023) 8 SCC 124
Sale of Goods Act, 1930
Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Credit note issued by an automobile manufacturer to a dealer of automobiles, in consideration of the replacement of a defective part done by the dealer pursuant to a warranty agreement, is exigible to sales tax. When a dealer replaces a defective part of the automobile by a spare part maintained in its stock or when the same is purchased by the dealer from the open market, in such situations, the credit note issued in the name of the dealer is a valuable consideration for transfer of property in the spare part made by the dealer to the customer. The same constitutes a “sale” under both the Central Sales Tax Act as well as the respective sales tax legislations of the respective States. Thus, the assessee-dealers are liable to pay sales tax on the said transaction. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SPL), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 443
SARFAESI Act
SARFAESI Act - As per unamended Section 13(8), borrower has right to redeem available till sale certificate is registered and possession is handed over. Surinder Pal Singh v. Vijaya Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 913
'Article 142 can't be invoked against statute' : Supreme Court refuses to extend time under SARFAESI rules for purchaser's deposit. Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 846
Borrower's right to redeem mortgage extinguishes once bank publishes auction notice for secured asset. Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1
SARFAESI Act no license for bank officers to act against law. Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808 : AIR 2023 SC 4568 : (2024) 2 SCC 1
Magistrate's Order under Section 14 SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513
SARFAESI auction can't be stayed just because the sale agreement holder offered to pay dues, when the borrower hasn't invoked S.13(8). G. Vikram Kumar v State Bank of Hyderabad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 394 : AIR 2023 SC 2359 : (2023) 5 SCR 624
Supreme Court deprecates High Courts entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters; frowns upon borrowers approaching HCs to consider offers to banks. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320
Bank can't forfeit deposit made after auction purchase when the bidder wasn't informed of challenge pending against sale. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308
Burden is on borrower to prove that secured properties are agricultural lands. K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : AIR 2023 SC 306 : (2023) 1 SCR 579
MSMED Act 'dues' will not prevail over SARFAESI Proceedings. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268 : (2023) 3 SCC 210 : (2023) 1 SCR 873
Borrower has to pre-deposit 50% of which amount in appeal before drat u/s 18 SARFAESI Act? The Supreme Court explains. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11 : AIR 2023 SC 368 : (2023) 1 SCR 553
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 3(2)(v) - For the above offence to be constituted, there must be an allegation that the accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such 'community'. As per the highest case of prosecution, the only offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more being the offence under Section 307 IPC has been applied on the basis of the gun shot allegedly fired by the accused, which admittedly did not result into any corresponding injury. From the admitted case set up by the prosecution, there is no such allegation that the offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more was committed by an accused of upper caste upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community with the knowledge that such person belonged to the said community. Hence, there is merit in the contention that prima facie ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are not made out from the admitted allegations of prosecution and to this extent, the charge framed against the accused is groundless. (Para 14 – 17) Shashikant Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1037
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 9(1)(b) of the SC/ST Act grants State Governments the power to delegate the authority to arrest, investigate, and prosecute offenders. This delegation of power is a vital aspect of the Act and should not be curtailed by any rules framed under Section 23 of the SC/ST Act. Sunil Kumar v. Lala Saurabh Verma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 858
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position. Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421 : AIR 2023 SC 2999
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 3(1)(x) - Before subjecting an accused to a trial for alleged commission of offence, it is desirable that the caste related utterances are outlined either in the FIR or, atleast, in the chargesheet. The same would enable it to ascertain if a case is made out for an offence under the SC/ST Act before taking cognisance of the matter. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469 : (2023) 6 SCR 643
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Supreme Court refuses to interfere with HC order quashing FIR lodged by a Dalit IIT faculty member against his colleagues alleging caste-based harassment - Court favours a conciliatory approach and urges the Chairman of Board of Governor to invite the complainant and the accused for talks - Court observes allegations and counter-allegations damage the repute of a premier institution like IIT - Court impresses upon them to ensure that they work together as a team in the best interests of the institution and their students, and do not allow any unfortunate and untoward incidents to occur which might hurt the sentiments, feelings, respect and dignity of each other - Court says the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an impediment to restoration of normalcy and bringing cordiality back between the appellant and the respondents in their professional and personal capacities. Subrahmanyam Saderla v. Chandra Shekhar Upadhyay, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 126
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings - Initiation of the criminal proceedings therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court - Complaint and summoning order quashed. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14 : AIR 2023 SC 262
Sealed Cover
It is now an established principle of natural justice that relevant material must be disclosed to the affected party. This rule ensures that the affected party is able to effectively exercise their right to appeal. When relevant material is disclosed in a sealed cover, there are two injuries that are perpetuated. First, the documents are not available to the affected party. Second, the documents are relied upon by the opposite party (which is most often the state) in the course of the arguments, and the court arrives at a finding by relying on the material. In such a case, the affected party does not have any recourse to legal remedies because it would be unable to (dis)prove any inferences from the material before the adjudicating authority. (Para 58) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
Public Immunity Claim procedure devised as a less restrictive alternative to sealed cover procedure. (Para 171 to 173) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
Sealed cover procedures violate both principles of natural justice and open justice. (Para 146) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
Supreme Court quashes the decision of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to not renew the telecast license for Malayalam news channel MediaOne - Disapproves the "sealed cover procedure" adopted by the High Court in upholding the Govt decision on the basis of confidential documents furnished by MHA in sealed cover. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
This form of adjudication perpetuates a culture of secrecy and opaqueness, and places the judgment beyond the reach of challenge - The right to seek judicial review which has now been read into Articles 14 and 21 is restricted. A corresponding effect of the sealed cover procedure is a non-reasoned order. (Para 59) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269
SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998
SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations 1998; Regulation 19(3) - There is a patent error on the part of the Tribunal in interpreting the Regulations. The Tribunal held that the role of the respondent, who was a Company Secretary, compliance officer, was limited to redressing the grievances of investors. In arriving at the finding, the Tribunal has relied upon the latter part of Regulation 19(3) which deals with redressal of the grievances of investors. The crucial point which has been missed by the Tribunal is that the compliance officer is also required to ensure compliance with the buyback regulations. Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations expressly so stipulates. (Para 11) Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101