Home
/

Supreme court
/
The Complete Supreme Court Civil...

The Complete Supreme Court Civil Digest 2023

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

17 March 2024 3:06 AM GMT

Access to Justice

Fundamental right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court - The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution. (Para 112) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Administrative Law

A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority. (Para 101) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Administrative Law - MD, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar - in order to set aside the order of punishment, the aggrieved person must be able prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to non-disclosure- to prove prejudice, he must prove that had the material been disclosed to him the outcome or the punishment would have been different. [Para 19] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533

Administrative Law - Principles of - MP Jain and SN Jain's treatise - If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him - the principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. [Para 17] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533

Administrative Law - T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India - A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication - the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication - if it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. [Para 18] Deepal Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533

Administrative Law – Well established principle of - An adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. [Para 17] Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533

Article 323A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs. (Para 32) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Decision will be vitiated if materials are not disclosed to the affected party. Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 30 : AIR 2023 SC 533

Notification Issued by Central Govt not invalid merely because it's not issued in the President's name. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : (2023) 6 SCR 731

Rules of Business - When the Cabinet constitutes a committee and the latter's actions are validated by the Minister and the rest of the Council, then it cannot be claimed that Rules of Business have not been followed by the State Government in the course of its decision-making process. (Para 90) Bishambhar Prasad v. Arfat Petrochemicals, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Rules of business not violated by the state, when actions of the cabinet committee are validated by the council of ministers. Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Arfat Petrochemicals, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 337 : (2023)7 SCR 230

Supreme Court praises Orissa High Court for creatively using technology; Says other HCs should replicate it. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : (2023) 6 SCR 731

The decision to establish, continue or abolish the OAT is in the nature of a policy formulated and implemented by the State Government (acting with the Union Government under the Administrative Tribunals Act). The public at large does not have a right to be heard before a policy is formulated and implemented. (Para 86) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

The notification dated 2 August 2019 was not issued in the name of the President. However, this does not render the notification invalid. The effect of not complying with Article 77 is that the Union Government cannot claim the benefit of the irrebuttable presumption that the notification dated 2 August 2019 was issued by the President. Hence, the appellants' argument that the notification dated 2 August 2019 is invalid and unconstitutional is specious. (Para 102) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

The Supreme Court directs the Ministry of Law & Justice to conduct judicial impact assessment of all Tribunals at the Earliest. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : (2023) 6 SCR 731

'Union Govt has power to abolish State Administrative Tribunal' : Supreme Court affirms abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216 : (2023) 6 SCR 731

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 - The relevant State Government has the implied power to issue a request to abolish the SAT in its state to the Union Government. The Union Government in turn has the implied power to rescind the notification by which that SAT was established, thereby abolishing the SAT. (Para 59) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the Odisha Administrative Tribunal because the doctrine cannot ordinarily be applied in cases where the government is formulating and implementing a policy. (Para 128 (f)) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Adoption

Supreme Court issues directions to expedite adoption process; directs states to conduct drives to identify children, establish adoption agencies. Temple of Healing v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

Mere registration of adoption deed will not absolve a person from proving the fact of adoption with cogent evidence. Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 998

Adverse Possession

When adverse possession is claimed over government land, Courts must act with greater care. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : AIR 2023 SC 3988

The onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession shifts on the defendant, once the title of the property has been upheld in the name of Plaintiff by a judgment/decree in an earlier suit between the same parties. (Para 7) Prasanna v. Mudegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Adverse Remarks

Adverse remarks against public officials should not be passed unless absolutely necessary. State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721

Adverse Remarks During Hearings – Live Broadcast and Virtual Hearings – Essential for courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against parties involved – Remarks may be passed only with proper justification, in the right forum, and if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice – Stricter standard of responsibility on judges while conducting such court proceedings due to advent of live broadcast and virtual hearings – Held, remarks liable to be expunged for having caused injury to the appellant's reputation on account of being widely circulated by the media – Appeal allowed. Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh P.S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Advocate

Advocate acting as real estate agent & selling client's property amounts to misconduct : Supreme Court upholds BCI penalty. Syed Altaf Ahmed v. S. Suson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 767

Advocate didn't disclose that his wife was the opposite party in client's case : Supreme Court upholds BCI penalty. Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet @ Ranu Yadav Dokh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635

Advocates cannot claim right of legal representation under Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme Court answers reference. ThyssenKrupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 868

Advocates Strikes - The Supreme Court requested all high courts to constitute grievance redressal committees comprising the chief justice and two other senior judges, one from the Bar and another from services to avert lawyers' strikes. District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 331 : AIR 2023 SC 2088

All India Bar Examination - BCI may lay down a rule that people who were in non-legal jobs for a certain number of years should qualify AIBE to rejoin legal profession. (Para 42) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

All India Bar Examination - It has to be left to the Bar Council of India as to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be held – pre or post enrolment. (Para 35) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

All India Bar Examination - Strictly follow the schedule of conducting AIBE twice a year as otherwise the students with law degrees would be left idling their time. (Para 36) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

All India Bar Examination - Supreme Court accepts the suggestion of amicus curiae that students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible to pursue the final semester of the final year course of law, on production of proof of the same, could be allowed to take the All India Bar Examination - During the interrugnum between passing the university and enrolment, any graduate with the degree who is yet to appear for the Bar examination or get enrolled under the said Act should be able to do all the tasks allied to the legal profession other than the function of acting or pleading before the courts. (Para 38) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Duty of all genuine lawyers to get their degrees verified: Supreme Court forms expert committee to oversee verification. Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : (2023) 6 SCC 144

Ensure advocates representing state are paid in time, unfortunate that they've to approach Court : Supreme Court to UP Govt. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bina Pandey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 769

Legal profession is no longer a family profession; newcomers must be encouraged': Supreme Court encourages diversity in senior designations. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425 : AIR 2023 SC 3009 : (2023) 8 SCC 1

Litigants should not be made to suffer because of the advocate's fault in withdrawing a complaint by mistake. Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587 : AIR 2023 SC 3622

No strict age bar of 45 years for senior designation, but only exceptional advocates be designated below this age. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425 : AIR 2023 SC 3009 : (2023) 8 SCC 1

Senior Advocate Designation – Guidelines modified - Process should be done at least once a year - Reduces points assigned for publication; expands its scope to include teaching assignments and guest lectures - No strict age bar of 45 years for senior designation, but only exceptional advocates be designated below this age - Legal Profession no longer a family profession; newcomers must be encouraged - Role played by lawyers in cases to be assessed than counting mere appearances. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Senior Advocate Designation: Supreme Court reduces points assigned for publication; expands its scope to include teaching assignments and guest lectures. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425 : AIR 2023 SC 3009 : (2023) 8 SCC 1

Senior Advocate Designation: Supreme Court says role played by lawyers in cases to be assessed than counting mere appearances. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425 : AIR 2023 SC 3009 : (2023) 8 SCC 1

Supreme Court Constitution Bench upholds the validity of All India Bar Examination - Recongizes the right of Bar Council of India to prescribe such a condition for practice - Overrules decision in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176, in which the top court had held that no condition, other than those enumerated in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, could be imposed on a person wishing to practise law-Court however clarifies that the setting aside of the judgment in V. Sudeer is in no manner an imprimatur to mandating the requirement of pre-enrolment training. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Supreme Court directs Manipur bar associations to not prevent lawyers of any community from appearing before courts; warns of contempt action. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 837

Supreme Court modifies guidelines for senior advocate designations; says process should be done at least once a year. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 425 : AIR 2023 SC 3009 : (2023) 8 SCC 1

Supreme Court 'shocked' to see lawyer filing Article 32 petition against state to recover legal fees. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Supreme Court upholds disciplinary action against advocate who was running taxi service. Phoola Ram Jaat v. Sanwar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 768

Though advocates settle pleadings and argue on clients' instructions, they have a duty to verify facts from case records. Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1057

Advocates Act, 1961

Abkari Act; Section 8 - The testimonies of official witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined - the person receiving the information of the crime or detecting the occurrence thereof, can investigate the same. Questioning such an investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not amenable to a general unqualified rule that lends itself to uniform application. (Para 16-26) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Advocates Act 1961 - No provisions prohibit BCI from prescribing pre-enrolment exam- Neither these provisions, nor the role of the universities to impart legal education, in any way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with the standard of persons who want to obtain a license to practice law as a profession. (Para 20) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Advocates Act 1961 - Quality of lawyers is an important aspect and part of administration of justice and access to justice. Half baked lawyers serve no purpose. It is this quality control, which has been the endeavour of all the efforts made over a period of time. (Para 19) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Advocates Act 1961 - The objective of the legislature while giving wide powers to the Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the Advocates Act which gives it the power to prescribe rules, read with Clause (d) of Sub-section (3) of Section 24, which gives it the power to prescribe norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an advocate under the rules of the Bar Council of India, leads us to the conclusion that these are adequate powers with the Bar Council of India under the said act to provide for such norms and rules. We are, therefore, of the view that while considering the question referred to us, the only conclusion is that the interdict placed by the judgement of this court in V. Sudeer on the powers of the Bar Council of India cannot be sustained and we cannot hold that this decision laid down the correct position of law. The effect of the view expressed by us would be that it is left to the Bar Council of India as to at what stage, the All-India Bar Examination will be held, that is, pre-enrolment, or post-enrolment. (Para 33) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Advocates Act, 1961 - Bar Council of India can prescribe that only graduates from recognized law colleges can enrol as advocates. The rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid. Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 481

Advocates Act, 1961 - Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015 - Having regard to the larger dimensions of this matter and the direct impact which the enrollment of fake degree holders and other persons who are not found to be in possession of the qualifications required for entry into the Bar have on the administration of justice, we accede to the suggestion of the Bar Council of India that a High Powered Committee should be constituted by this Court to monitor the process of verification. In our view, such a High-Powered Committee should be chaired by a former Judge of this Court and its members should consist of: (i) two Judges of the High Court; (ii) two senior advocates; and (iii) three members of the Bar Council of India. (Para 13) Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : (2023) 6 SCC 144

Advocates Act, 1961; Section 35 - Professional Misconduct - Advocate did not disclose that his wife was the opposite party in the property dispute case taken up by him - Upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India to suspend the license - Advocate's son, who was assisting his father as his junior colleague, was let off with an undertaking that he won't commit any misconduct in future. Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet @ Ranu Yadav Dokh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635

Airlines

Airlines are bound by the time schedule promised by its travel agent. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994; Section 22A - “User development fee” (UDF) levied and collected by the airport operation, maintenance, and development entities from passengers, is a statutory levy, and thus, it is not subjected to levy of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. There is a distinction between the charges, fee and rent collected under Section 22 of the AAI Act and the UDF levied and collected under Section 22A of the AAI Act, the UDF is in the form of a 'tax or cess' collected for financing the cost of future projects. There was no consideration for the services provided by the assessee-entities to the customer, visitors, passengers, vendors, etc. As a part of the Union's economic policies, the upgradation and renovation of airports are funded through UDF, which is a statutory levy, the fact that the UDF amount is not deposited in a government treasury, per se, does not make it any less a statutory levy or compulsory exaction. Nor does its discretionary nature render it any less a statutory levy. Merely because the funds are kept in an escrow account, and their utilization is monitored separately, it does not undermine the public nature of the funds in any manner. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Animal Welfare

Supreme Court upholds laws allowing jallikattu, kambala & bull-cart racing In Tamil Nadu, Karnataka & Maharashtra. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447 : AIR 2023 SC 2612

'Century old practice': Supreme Court disagrees with 2014 verdict which held that jallikattu was not part of the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447 : AIR 2023 SC 2612

Jallikattu Case - Supreme Court refuses to extend fundamental rights to animals. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447 : AIR 2023 SC 2612

Jallikattu law can't be termed arbitrary merely because bulls lack natural ability to run like horses. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447 : AIR 2023 SC 2612

Arbitration

12 months' time limit under Section 29A Arbitration Act not applicable to international commercial arbitration. TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39 : (2023) 5 SCC 421

2015 Arbitration Amendment not applicable though S.11 application was filed after it, if arbitration notice was issued pre-amendment. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 417 : AIR 2023 SC 3554 : (2023) 8 SCC 329

Arbitration agreement can bind non-signatories: Supreme Court upholds 'group of companies' doctrine. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

Arbitration agreement in unstamped contract which is exigible to stamp duty not enforceable: Supreme Court holds by 3:2 majority. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : (2023) 7 SCC 1 (Overruled in In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 (7 Bench)

Arbitration award cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view of facts of interpretation of contract. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 668 : AIR 2023 SC 4049 : (2023) 9 SCC 85

Arbitration clause in unstamped agreement enforceable? The Supreme Court refers NN global' to seven-judge bench. Bhaskar Raju and Brothers v. Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram and Other Charities, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 828

Arbitration clauses in unstamped agreements enforceable : Supreme Court 7-judge Bench overrules 'NN Global' decision. In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049

Arbitration: Supreme Court upholds rejection of S. 8 application since cause of action went beyond transaction containing arbitration agreement. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Arbitrator can award pendente lite interest if there is no bar under contract. Indian Railway Construction Company v. National Buildings Construction Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 210 : (2023) 2 SCR 713

Arbitrator won't become ineligible by unilaterally revising fee; mandate can't be terminated on grounds not mentioned in schedule. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. v. Transtonnelstroy Afcons JV, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 909

Award can be said to be suffering from 'patent illegality' only if it is an illegality apparent on the face of it. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 416 : AIR 2023 SC 2280

Awarding a claim for loss of profit without substantial evidence is in conflict with public policy of India. Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918 : AIR 2023 SC 5231

Cancellation of deed is action in personam, not in rem; it is arbitrable. Sushma Shivkumar Daga v. Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 984

Court can examine if the arbitration clause is arbitrary and violates Article 14 while considering Section 11(6) application. Lombardi Engineering Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Court cannot, after setting aside the arbitration award, proceed to grant further relief by modifying the award. Indian Oil Corporation v. Sathyanarayana Service Station, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Dissenting opinion of an arbitrator cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Limitation period for arbitration - cause of action to appoint arbitrator commences from the “breaking point” between parties. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Limitation period for arbitration - mere negotiations between parties will not postpone the cause of action. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Limited scrutiny of court under Section 11 of Arbitration Act through the “eye of the needle”, is necessary and compelling. NTPC Ltd v. SPML Infra Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 287 : AIR 2023 SC 1974 : (2023) 2 SCR 846

Principle of 'alter ego' or 'piercing corporate veil' not the basis for 'group of companies' doctrine. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

Section 34 application must be filed within 90 days limitation to claim exclusion of period when court remain closed. Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v Walchandnagar Industries Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 288 : AIR 2023 SC 1990

Starting point of limitation u/section 34(3) Arbitration Act in cases of suo motu correction of award: Supreme Court explains. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Supreme Court deprecates practice of filing applications in disposed of SLPs to side-step arbitration process. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Supreme Court restores 1997 arbitral award passed under 1940 Act; criticises HC & Trial Court for "appellate review". S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : AIR 2023 SC 4174

The Court has no power to modify the award under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631 : AIR 2023 SC 4452

The Referral Court has the duty to conclusively decide the issue of 'existence & validity of arbitration agreement' raised at pre-referral stage. Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444 : AIR 2023 SC 2339

The Supreme Court explains scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards. Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Arbitration Act, 1940

Arbitration Act, 1940; Sections 30 and 33 - Court's jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act never extended beyond discerning whether the award discloses an “error apparent on the face of the award” or not. The ruling of the trial courts and the High Court is nothing short of intense appellate review, which is impermissible in law and beyond the courts' jurisdiction. S.D. Shinde v. Govt. of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 693 : AIR 2023 SC 4174

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Pre-deposit condition in an arbitration clause is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary. Deterring a party to an arbitration from invoking the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process by pre-deposit of certain percentage would discourage arbitration. (Para 42) Lombardi Engineering Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Award in question is patently illegal since it lacks reasoning in arriving at conclusions and calculation of amounts awarded. The High Court's order setting aside the award has been upheld. Appeal has been dismissed. (Para 45-46) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Concept of justice and morality - When an Award shocks the conscience of the court, for example where the claimant has restricted his claim but the arbitral tribunal has awarded a higher amount without any reasonable ground of justification, that would be against justice. However, morality would cover illegal and unenforceable agreements but interference would be only if warranted if something shocks the court's conscience. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Supreme Court has reiterated that the courts ought not to normally interfere with the arbitral proceedings, especially till the time an arbitral award is not passed - The top court has deprecated the practice of filing applications in disposed of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in order to side-step the arbitration process, adding that the said applications must not be entertained by the court. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325

Section 2(1)(h) - “Party”

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(1)(h) r/w. 7 - The definition of “parties” includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties. Conduct of the non-signatory parties could be an indicator of their consent to be bound by the arbitration agreement. The requirement of a written arbitration agreement under Section 7 does not exclude the possibility of binding non-signatory parties. Under the Arbitration Act, the concept of a “party” is distinct and different from the concept of “persons claiming through or under” a party to the arbitration agreement. (Para 165) Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(1)(h) r/w. 7 - Group of Companies Doctrine - The underlying basis for the application of the group of companies doctrine rests on maintaining the corporate separateness of the group companies while determining the common intention of the parties to bind the non-signatory party to the arbitration agreement. The principle of alter ego or piercing the corporate veil cannot be the basis for the application of the group of companies doctrine. The group of companies doctrine has an independent existence as a principle of law which stems from a harmonious reading of Section 2(1)(h) along with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. To apply the group of companies doctrine, the courts or tribunals, as the case may be, have to consider all the cumulative factors laid down in ONGC v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt Ltd (2022) 8 SCC 42. (Para 165) Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(1)(h) r/w. 7 - Group of Companies Doctrine - the principle of single economic unit cannot be the sole basis for invoking the group of companies doctrine. The persons “claiming through or under” can only assert a right in a derivative capacity. The approach of this Court in Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc; (2013) 1 SCC 641 to the extent that it traced the group of companies doctrine to the phrase “claiming through or under” is erroneous and against the well-established principles of contract law and corporate law. The group of companies doctrine should be retained in the Indian arbitration jurisprudence considering its utility in determining the intention of the parties in the context of complex transactions involving multiple parties and multiple agreements. In the course of this judgment, any authoritative determination given by this Court pertaining to the group of companies doctrine should not be interpreted to exclude the application of other doctrines and principles for binding non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. (Para 165) Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(1)(h) r/w. 7 - At the referral stage, the referral court should leave it for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement. (Para 165) Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042

Section 7 - Arbitration Agreement

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7 - An arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act attracts stamp duty and which is not stamped or insufficiently stamped cannot be acted upon in view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act unless following impounding and paying requisite duty. The provisions of Section 33 and the bar under Section 35 of the Stamp Act would render the arbitration agreement contained in such instrument as being non-existent in law until the instrument is validated under the Stamp Act. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : (2023) 7 SCC 1 (Overruled in In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 (7 Bench)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7 - Whether the arbitration clause in a contract, which is required to be registered and stamped, but is not registered and stamped, is valid and enforceable? Held, an instrument which is exigible to stamp duty may contain an arbitration clause and which is not stamped cannot be said to be a contract enforceable in law within the meaning of S. 2(h) of the Contract Act and is not enforceable under S 2(g) of the Contract Act. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : (2023) 7 SCC 1 (Overruled in In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 (7 Bench)

Section 8 - Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Sections 8 and 11 - Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable. Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect. An objection as to stamping does not fall for determination under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act. The concerned court must examine whether the arbitration agreement prima facie exists. Any objections in relation to the stamping of the agreement fall within the ambit of the arbitral tribunal. (Para 224, Overruled: N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., (2023) 7 SCC 1, SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd; (2011) 14 SCC 66 and Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC 209 (Para 22 and 29) In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 (7 Bench)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 - the reliefs claimed in the suit fell outside the arbitration clause contained in the agreement executed between the parties. The court reckoned that the issue raised in the civil suit involved multiple transactions, involving different contracting parties and different agreements, all of which, except for one, did not contain an arbitration clause. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court where it had upheld the rejection of an application filed under Section 8 of the Act in a commercial civil suit, noting that the cause of action of the suit went beyond the transaction containing the arbitration agreement. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 - While noting that the reliefs claimed in the suit involved subsequent purchasers of the suit property, which were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, held that, the case did not involve any “doubt” about the non-existence of arbitration agreement in relation to the dispute in question. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. A Infrastructure Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 and 11 - Arbitral Tribunal is competent to decide on its own competence. (Para 15) Sushma Shivkumar Daga v. Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 984

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 and 11 - Plea of fraud must be serious in nature in order to oust the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator. (Para 20) Sushma Shivkumar Daga v. Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 984

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8 and 11- Cancellation of a deed is an action in personam, not in rem, and hence arbitrable. (Para 19) Sushma Shivkumar Daga v. Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 984

Section 11 - Appointment of Arbitrators

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 11(6) - A clause in an arbitration agreement which is not in consonance with the Constitution cannot be enforced. The Court can examine if the arbitration clauses are manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution while considering an application for appointment of arbitrator. (Para 84) Lombardi Engineering Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 11(6) - Persons interested in the outcome of the arbitration must not have the power to appoint arbitrators. (Para 87) Lombardi Engineering Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 11(6) - The argument that the petitioner having consented to the pre-deposit clause at the time of execution of the agreement, cannot turn around and tell the court in a Section 11(6) petition that the same is arbitrary and falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution is without any merit. (Para 84) Lombardi Engineering Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Certified copy can be produced at the Section 11 stage only if it clearly indicates the stamp duty paid. If the same is not mentioned, the Court should not act on the said certified copy. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : (2023) 7 SCC 1 (Overruled in In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 (7 Bench)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - The Apex Court has set aside the decision of the Delhi High Court where the Court had referred the parties to arbitration under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, after the parties had entered into a Settlement Agreement which recorded that there were no subsisting issues pending between them. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have exercised the prima facie test to screen and strike down the ex-facie meritless and dishonest litigation. Further, it ought to have examined the issue of the final settlement of disputes in context of the principles laid down in Vidya Drolia and Ors. vs. Durga Trading Corporation ((2021) 2 SCC 1 - The Supreme Court has ruled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, the court is not expected to act mechanically, and that the limited scrutiny of the court at the pre-reference stage, through the “eye of the needle”, is necessary and compelling. NTPC Ltd v. SPML Infra Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 287 : AIR 2023 SC 1974 : (2023) 2 SCR 846

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - the Court at the Section 11 stage is bound to examine the instrument and if found to be unstamped or insufficiently stamped the instrument is to be impounded at this stage itself. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 343 : (2023) 7 SCC 1 (Overruled in In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 (7 Bench)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 (6) - Post amendment in 2015, the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is confined to examining whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties – “nothing more, nothing less”. Under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, referral court is duty bound to consider the dispute/issue with respect to the existence of an Arbitration Agreement. (Para 5.2) Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444 : AIR 2023 SC 2339

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 (6) - The 'pre-referral' jurisdiction of Court under Section 11 (6) consists of two inquiries, (i) existence and validity of arbitration agreement; and (ii) non-arbitrability of dispute. The primary inquiry is about the existence and the validity of an arbitration agreement, which also includes an inquiry as to the parties to the agreement and the applicant's privity to the said agreement. The said matter requires a thorough examination by the referral court. The Secondary inquiry that may arise at the reference stage itself is with respect to the non-arbitrability of the dispute. Both are different and distinct. So far as the first issue with respect to the existence and the validity of an arbitration agreement is concerned, as the same goes to the root of the matter, the same has to be to conclusively decided by the referral court at the referral stage itself. With respect to non-arbitrability of the dispute, the court at pre-referral stage may prima facie examine the arbitrability of claims. The review at the reference stage is done to sideline the cases where litigation must stop at the first stage. (Para 5.3) Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444 : AIR 2023 SC 2339

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 (6) - When the issue of 'existence and validity of an arbitration agreement' is raised at pre-referral stage, then the Court is duty bound to conclusively decide the issue. If the issue regarding 'existence and validity of an arbitration agreement' is left to the Arbitral Tribunal, then it will be contrary to Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act. This is to protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate in absence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Para 5.3) Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 444 : AIR 2023 SC 2339

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - the cause of action to appoint an arbitrator would commence from the “Breaking Point” at which any reasonable party would abandon efforts for at arriving at a settlement and contemplate referral of the dispute for arbitration. “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose for the purpose of limitation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Entire history of the negotiation between the parties must be specifically pleaded and placed on record, in order to facilitate the Court to find out what was the “Breaking Point” for the purpose of limitation computation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - “Cause of action” to mean material facts that are necessary to be proved by the plaintiff to succeed in a suit; and it plays a necessary role in computation of limitation period for bringing an action. If a party simply delays sending a notice seeking reference under the Act 1996 because they are unclear of when the cause of action arose, the claim can become time-barred even before the party realises the same. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Mere negotiations will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation - the limitation period of three years for filing such application would commence from the date when the cause of action arose. Subsequent negotiations between the parties, which take place after the cause of action has arisen, will not postpone the cause of action for the purpose of limitation computation. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Limitation period for arbitration - Negotiations may continue even for a period of ten years or twenty years after the cause of action had arisen. Mere negotiations will not postpone the “cause of action” for the purpose of limitation. The Legislature has prescribed a limit of three years for the enforcement of a claim and this statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Limitation Act, 1963; Article 137 - the Arbitration Act does not prescribe any time period for filing an application under Section 11(6) for appointment of Arbitrator. Thus, the limitation of three years provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to such proceedings. The time limit of three years would commence from the period when the right to apply accrues. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963; Article 137 - If an infringement of a right happens at a particular time, the whole cause of action will be said to have arisen then and there. In such a case, it is not open to a party to sit tight and not to file an application for settlement of dispute of his right, which had been infringed, within the time provided by the Limitation Act, and, allow his right to be extinguished by lapse of time, and thereafter, to wait for another cause of action and then file an application under Section 11 of the Act 1996 for establishment of his right which was not then alive, and, which had been long extinguished because, in such a case, such an application would mean an application for revival of a right, which had long been extinguished under the Act 1963 and is, therefore, dead for all purposes. Such proceedings would not be maintainable and would obviously be met by the plea of limitation under Article 137 of the Act 1963. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 466 : AIR 2023 SC 2731

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6), 11 (6A), 21 - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Where the notice invoking arbitration is issued prior to the coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act, i.e., prior to 23.10.2015, and the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, is made post the enforcement of the Amendment Act, the 2015 Amendment Act shall not be applicable. In Parmar Construction (2019) and Pradeep Vinod Construction (2020), the Supreme Court had specifically held that where the request to refer the dispute to arbitration was made before the 2015 Amendment Act came into effect, the unamended A&C Act shall be applicable for appointment of arbitrator. In BCCI (2018), the Apex Court has ruled the 2015 Amendment Act, 2015 to be prospective in nature only so far as the proceedings under Sections 34 & 36 of the Act are concerned. Further, the application under Section 11(6) was not in issue before the court. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 417 : AIR 2023 SC 3554 : (2023) 8 SCC 329

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 11(6) and 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - Application for appointment of arbitrator - A contract entered into in the name of the President of India, does not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777

Section 12 - Grounds for Challenge

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 12 - Unilateral revision of fee by an arbitral tribunal, though not permissible, will not terminate its mandate on the ground of ineligibility. (Para 34) Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. v. Transtonnelstroy Afcons JV, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 909

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - the Arbitrator appointed by Union, who is an employee of the Union, is ineligible to be appointed as the Arbitrator as per Para 1 of Schedule VII read with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777

Section 28 - Rules applicable to substance of dispute.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 28(3) - Scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards - While setting aside an arbitral award for being violative of Section 28(3) of the Act, it must be considered that the Arbitrator is empowered to interpret the contract terms reasonably. Arbitrator's interpretation cannot be a ground for setting aside an award, since the construction of contract's terms is finally for the arbitrator to decide. Under Section 28(3), award can only be set aside if the arbitrator interprets it in manner as no fair-minded reasonable person would do. Section 28(3) of the Act mandatorily obligates the arbitral tribunal to decide cases as per terms of the contract and by considering the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction. (Para 41-43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 28(3) - The meaning of patent illegality was interpreted to mean, (a) contravention of substantive law of India which goes to the root of matter and is not be trivial in nature; (b) when Arbitrator gives no reason in award in contravention with Section 31(3) of the Arbitration Act; and (c) contravention of Section 28(3) of Arbitration Act which mandatorily obligates the arbitral tribunal to decide cases as per terms of the contract and by considering the usage of the trade applicable to the transaction. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Section 29A - Time limit for arbitral award

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 29A - Post 2019 amendment, the time limit of twelve months as prescribed in Section 29A is applicable to only domestic arbitrations and the twelve-month period is only directory in nature for an international commercial arbitration - Arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavor to complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date of competition of pleadings and are not bound to abide by the time limit prescribed for domestic arbitrations. (Para 25-29) TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39 : (2023) 5 SCC 421

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 29A - Section 29A(1), as amended, is remedial in nature, it should be applicable to all pending arbitral proceedings as on the effective date i.e., 30 August 2019 - The amendment is remedial in that it carves out international commercial arbitrations from the rigour of the timeline of six months. (Para 34) TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39 : (2023) 5 SCC 421

Section 31 - Form and Contents of Arbitral Award

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7) - Unless there is a specific bar under the contract, it is always open for the arbitrator / Arbitral Tribunal to award pendente lite interest. (Para 7.5) Indian Railway Construction Company v. National Buildings Construction Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 210 : (2023) 2 SCR 713

Section 33 - Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 33(3) and 34(3) - The starting point for the limitation in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party - Once the arbitral award has been amended or corrected, it is the corrected award which has to be challenged and not the original award. The original award stands modified, and the corrected award must be challenged by filing objections. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Section 34 - Application for setting aside Arbitral Awards

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - A dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. It might provide useful clues in case there is a procedural issue which becomes critical during the challenge hearings - When a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in the majority award. The minority award (or dissenting opinion, as the learned authors point out) only embodies the views of the arbitrator disagreeing with the majority. There is no occasion for anyone- such as the party aggrieved by the majority award, or, more crucially, the party who succeeds in the majority award, to challenge the soundness, plausibility, illegality or perversity in the approach or conclusions in the dissenting opinion. That dissenting opinion would not receive the level and standard of scrutiny which the majority award (which is under challenge) is subjected to. (Para 27) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - An application under Section 34 must be filed within “prescribed period” of limitation i.e. 90 days, for seeking benefit of exclusion of period during which the Court remained closed from computation of limitation period. If the application is filed by invoking proviso to Section 34(3) of Arbitration Act, which extends the limitation period to further 30 days on the Court's discretion, then benefit of such exclusion would not be available to the applicant. Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v Walchandnagar Industries Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 288 : AIR 2023 SC 1990

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards - Arbitral Tribunal is ultimate master of quality and quantity of evidence. An Award cannot be regarded invalid merely for being passed upon little or no evidence. It is not imperative for every Arbitrator to be trained in law like a Judge. Even if decisions are passed over equity, being just and fair, such decisions cannot be set aside alleging arbitrariness. (Para 43) Batliboi Environmental Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Supreme Court sets aside the HC order which set aside an arbitral award - SC hold that HC exceeded in its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act quashing and setting aside the well-reasoned award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Indian Railway Construction Company v. National Buildings Construction Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 210 : (2023) 2 SCR 713

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 (2)(b)(ii) - A claim for damages, whether general or special, cannot as a matter of course result in an award without proof of the claimant having suffered injury. Awarding claim for loss of profit without substantial evidence is in conflict with public policy of India. (Para 20) Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918 : AIR 2023 SC 5231

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(3) - Purpose and Object - To enable the parties to study, examine and understand the award, thereupon, if the party chooses and is advised, draft and file objections within the time specified. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(3) Proviso - Court has the power to condone the delay for further period of thirty days - Application for condonation of delay can be filed at any time till the proceedings are pending. Of course, exercise of discretion and whether or not the delay should be condoned is a different matter. USS Alliance v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - An award could be said to be suffering from “patent illegality” only if it is an illegality apparent on the face of the award and not to be searched out by way of re-appreciation of evidence - The narrow scope of “patent illegality” cannot be breached by mere use of different expressions which nevertheless refer only to “error” and not to “patent illegality - if an Arbitrator construes the term of contract in a reasonable manner, the award cannot be set aside with reference to the deduction drawn from construction - The possibility of interference would arise only if the construction of the Arbitrator is such which could not be made by any fair minded and reasonable person. (Para 18, 25, 36) Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 416 : AIR 2023 SC 2280

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - Awards which contain reasons, especially when they interpret contractual terms, ought not to be interfered with, lightly - Appellate review is unavailable when exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act - Courts cannot, through process of primary contract interpretation, thus, create pathways to the kind of review which is forbidden under Section 34. (Para 22 - 23) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The court is powerless to modify the award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award on a finding that the conditions spelt out under Section 34 have been established - In appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34. (Para 13-16) Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 631 : AIR 2023 SC 4452

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The Court cannot, after setting aside the award, proceed to grant further relief by modifying the award. It must leave the parties to work out their remedies in a given case even where it justifiably interferes with the award. (Para 27) Indian Oil Corporation v. Sathyanarayana Service Station, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The scope of interference by a court in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is restricted and subject to the same grounds as the challenge under Section 34 of the Act - This jurisdiction is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction - The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act is exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal's view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, the question of reinterpreting the contract on an alternative view does not arise. (Para 14, 15, 20) Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 668 : AIR 2023 SC 4049 : (2023) 9 SCC 85

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - View taken by the arbitrator in the facts, can be characterised as being perverse. It is undoubtedly a plausible view. It closes the door for the court to intervene. The finding of the arbitrator cannot be described as one betraying “a patent illegality". (Para 22) Indian Oil Corporation v. Sathyanarayana Service Station, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Armed Forces

The Supreme Court extends disability pension claim of army veteran for 10 years as allowed under pension regulations for the army. Ex L/NK Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Are civilian employees of armed forces unit run canteens government servants? the supreme court refers to a larger bench. Union of India v. Vinod Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 795

BSF Act - Even if an officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the court has to satisfy that confession is voluntary. Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758 : AIR 2023 SC 4262 : (2023) 9 SCC 720

'Discipline is a non-negotiable condition of service in Armed Forces': Supreme Court dismisses appeal of suspended army driver who overstayed leave. Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580 : AIR 2023 SC 3642 : (2023) 9 SCC 100

In the armed forces of the Union, including the paramilitary forces, utmost discipline, unity of command et al are the sine qua non. That said, the doctrine of proportionality still holds the field. (Para 36) B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Supreme Court sets aside punishment imposed on BSF Commandant for allegedly allowing trans-border drugs smuggling. B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303

High Courts can entertain challenges to orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal: Supreme Court overruled its Judgment. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Army Act, 1950

Army Act, 1950 - Discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a nonnegotiable condition of service. (Para 10) Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Army Act, 1950; Sections 45 and 63 - Miscellanious application filed by UoI seeking clarification of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39) - This Court was neither called upon nor has it ventured to pronounce on the effect of Sections 45 and 63 of the 1950 Act as also the corresponding provisions in other Acts or any other provisions of the Acts. We only make this position clear. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Andhra Pradesh)

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Andhra Pradesh) - Serious allegations prevail against the Appellants for being involved with the land mafia to usurp the Subject Land for private interests which was the precise reason for the Government to introduce legislation in the nature of the 1977 Act. Held, the Appellants are not entitled to any compensation under the existing constitutional framework. The proceedings emanating out of the second show cause notice (SCN) were valid; the Subject Land was non-alienable and hence was subject to the provisions of the 1977 Act. The Appellants had transferred the Subject Land in contravention to the provisions of 1977 Act and therefore, the resultant resumption order dated 27.01.2007 is valid. The Appellants are also not entitled to any compensation on account of the requisition of the assigned land. (Para 74 & 75) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Andhra Pradesh) - The parties have been litigating since the year 1994. During these decades, the Subject Land has acquired enormous value. Some of the documents on record do indicate that land mafia has already ousted the gullible Assignees and now have vulture's eyes on the land. Additionally, 'Greyhounds Commando Force', a security agency of paramount national importance, currently occupies the Subject Land in public interest. The Subject Land in its entirety is declared to have vested in the State Government. On further allotment, its ownership and possessory rights, free from all encumbrances, stand transferred in favour of the Greyhounds Commando Force. No Civil Court or High Court shall entertain any claim whatsoever on behalf of any Assignee, their legal representative, GPA holder or any other claimant under any Agreement to sell or other instruments, claiming direct or indirect interests in the Subject Land. There shall be a final quietus of title and possessory dispute over the Subject Land in favour of the RespondentState and/or the agency to whom the said land has been allotted. (Para 76) Yadaiah v State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Auction

Possession of license to do business in shop does not entitle party to allotment of auction platform as matter of right. Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180 : AIR 2023 SC 1395

Aysuh Mission

Operating Guidelines of the National AYSUH Mission - Paragraph 4(vi)(b) - Order for the purchase of Ayurvedic medicines issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh in favour of Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited (IMPCL) - Inviting tenders from the entities is the most transparent and non-arbitrary method of allocation that can be undertaken - The State must henceforth purchase Ayurvedic medicines only through a free and transparent procedure such as tenders. The State may deviate from this rule and procure medicines by nomination only if exceptional circumstances exist. In such a situation, the State must demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances on the basis of cogent material. (Para 31) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6 : AIR 2023 SC 314 : (2023) 1 SCR 473

Bank

PNB Regulations - Bank can't withhold PF and gratuity without proving actual loss caused by employee. Jyotirmay Ray v. Field General Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Though nationalised bank employees are 'public servants', protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. not available. A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : AIR 2023 SC 3811 : (2023) 8 SCC 711

Company's bank account can't be frozen for criminal investigation against an unrelated party. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Banks must give the opportunity of hearing to borrowers before classifying their accounts as fraud. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243 : AIR 2023 SC 1859 : (2023) 6 SCC 1

Banking Regulation Act, 1949

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

Bar Council

Bar Council of India can prescribe that only graduates from recognized law colleges can enrol as advocates. Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 481 : AIR 2023 SC 3608

Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015 - The due verification of advocates who are enrolled with the State Bar Councils, is of utmost importance to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice. Persons who profess to be lawyers, but do not either have the educational qualifications or degree certificates on the basis of which they could have lawfully granted entry to the Bar, pose a grave danger to the administration of justice to citizens. Hence, it is the duty of every genuine advocate of the country to ensure that they cooperate with the Bar Council of India which is seeking to ensure that the certificates of practice are duly verified, together with the underlying educational degree certificates. Unless this exercise is carried out periodically, there is a danger that the administration of justice would be under a serious cloud. (Para 10) Ajay Shankar Srivastava v. Bar Council of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 307 : (2023) 6 SCC 144

Bar Council of India - Ensure enrolment fee does not become oppressive- different State Bar Councils are charging different fees for enrolment. This is something which needs the attention of the Bar Council of India, which is not devoid of the powers to see that a uniform pattern is observed and the fee does not become oppressive at the threshold of young students joining the Bar. (Para 44) Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Bar Council of India should obtain English translation of documents in disciplinary proceedings. J. Johnson v. S. Selvaraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 979

Bar Council of India has powers to prescribe All India Bar Examination: Supreme Court; Overrules 'V Sudeer' Judgment. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Let final year students take AIBE, Ensure enrolment fee doesn't become oppressive: Supreme Court to Bar Council of India. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

On a long break from law practice?retake bar examination to rejoin the profession. Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96 : AIR 2023 SC 854 : (2023) 2 SCR 343

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Supreme Court dismisses centre's curative petition seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Supreme Court dismisses Centre's curative plea seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide Corporation after reopening settlement entered in 1989 which was approved by the Supreme Court-The Union has filed the present curative petitions seeking to reopen the settlement after opposing attempts by private parties to do so. The responsibility was placed on the Union of India, being a welfare State to make good the deficiency and to take out the relevant insurance policies. Surprisingly, we are informed that no such insurance policy was taken out. This is gross negligence on part of the Union of India and is a breach of the directions made in the review judgment. The Union cannot be negligent on this aspect and then seek a prayer from this Court to fix such liability on UCC. (Para 46) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - While we sympathize with the victims of the awful tragedy, we are unable to disregard settled principles of law, particularly at the curative stage. Mere sympathy for the sufferers does not enable us to devise a panacea; more so while looking into the nature of dispute, and the multifarious occasions on which this Court has applied its mind to the settlement. (Para 40) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Union of India's claim for a 'top up' has no foundations in any known legal principle. Either a settlement is valid or it is to be set aside in cases where it is vitiated by fraud. No such fraud has been pleaded by the Union, and their only contention relates to a number of victims, injuries, and costs that were not contemplated at the time the settlement was effected - We are equally dissatisfied with the Union being unable to furnish any rationale for raking up this issue more than two decades after the incident. (Para 47, 48) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - A sum of Rs.50 crore lying with the RBI shall be utilised by the Union of India to satisfy pending claims, if any, in accordance with the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the Scheme framed thereunder. (Para 49) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Providing closure to a lis is also a very important aspect. This is more so in the context of the scenario faced by the Indian judiciary, where delay is almost inevitable. This concern would be further amplified in respect of a tort claim such as the present one - if evidence were to be led for each claimant, this would open a pandora's box in UCC's favour and would only be to the detriment of the beneficiaries. (Para 50) Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 200 : AIR 2023 SC 1546

Border Security Force Act, 1968

Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Even if the Officer pleads guilty of misconduct, the Court has to satisfy that the confession is voluntary. (Para 38) Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 758

Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Supreme Court quashes the order of General Security Force Court imposing dismissal from service, imprisonment for 10 years and fine of 1 lakh on a a BSF commandment for allegedly allowing cross-border transport of substances banned under the NDPS Act-appellant held entitled to full retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation till date. B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Building

The Supreme Court upholds rule requiring builders to reserve open spaces in developed plots. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2023 SC 1011

Building Rules - Supreme Court upheld a rule which mandated that builders should reserve open spaces in the plots developed by them- Regulation 19 of Development Control Rules for the Chennai Metropolitan Area. Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2023 SC 1011

Building Rules - Mandate to reserve 10% open space area does not violate Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution- It does not amount to compulsory acquisition. (Para 51, 66, 137,148, 154) Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2023 SC 1011

Building Rules - Open Spaces - Areas covered by the Open Space Regulations cannot be diverted for any other purpose - The respondents (local authorities) are duty-bound to ensure that the area set apart as OSR is stringently utilised only for the purpose in the Rule/Regulation. We direct that no area meant for OSR shall be utilised as dumping yards or any other purpose other than as OSR. (Para 178) Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 105 : AIR 2023 SC 1011

Canon Law

Kerala High Court's observation that church assets are governed by public trust law and Bishops have no power to alienate them are prima facie in nature, no finality can be attached to them. (Para 21, 22) Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203 : (2023) 2 SCR 1014

Cantonment

No legal right to seek de-sealing of property by cantonment board, when building plan not been sanctioned. Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568 : AIR 2023 SC 3603

Cantonments Act, 2006

Cantonments Act, 2006 - A property sealed by Cantonment Board alleging unauthorized construction cannot be requested to be 'de-sealed', while the building plan of that Property has not yet been sanctioned by the Cantonment. (Para 15) Ram Kishan v. Manish Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 568

Carriage

Section 16 Carriage by Road Act applicable to suit/ legal proceedings in connection with loss/damage to consignment alone. ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378 : AIR 2023 SC 2140

Carriage by Road Act, 2007

Carriage by Road Act, 2007; Section 16 - Suit and legal proceedings in connection with the loss or damage to the consignment alone are covered by Section 16 for which purpose, a notice is mandatory. The said provision has no application in reference to loss of any other kind or the suit or legal proceedings instituted for recovery of damages in respect of loss of different nature. (Para 17-19) ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378 : AIR 2023 SC 2140

Caste

Discrimination in allowing late submission of caste certificates: Supreme Court directs Gujarat Govt. to appoint 2 candidates 16 years after they applied. State of Gujarat v. Thakore Bhalabhai Umabhai, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 947

Caste or religion of litigant should never be mentioned in judgments : Supreme Court to all Courts. State of Rajasthan v. Gautam Mohanlal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 875

Persons who secure a job in reserved posts based on false caste certificates liable to be dismissed. Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644

CCS Pension Rules

CCS Pension Rules, 1972; Rule 2(g) and 17 - Past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account for pension. (Para 9) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 662

CCS Pension Rules; Rule 26 (2) - Unauthorized resignation from government service for another government job will result in the forfeiture of past service and pension benefits. (Para 17) Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807

CCTV

Comply with directions to install CCTVs in police stations: Supreme Court gives warning to Centre, States. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 134

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972; Rule 13 - Service rendered as casual / contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment - Can't be counted towards qualifying services for pensionary benefits - The High Court has materially erred in observing that the contractual service would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity. Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation v. Magi H. Desai, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 248 : AIR 2023 SC 1623

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - A case where a child is born to the deceased government servant after his death has to be contrasted with a case where a child is adopted by the widow of a government servant after his death. The former category of heirs are covered under the definition of family since such a child would be a posthumous child of the deceased government servant. (Para 14) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Sections 8 and 12 - Family Pension - A son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, could not be included within the definition of 'family' - Rights and entitlements of an adopted son of a Hindu widow, as available in Hindu Law, as against his adoptive family, cannot axiomatically be held to be available to such adopted son, as against the government, in a case specifically governed by extant pension rules. (Para 10-12) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 54(14)(b) - The phrase “in relation to a government servant” would indicate that the categories of persons listed thereunder, such as wife, husband, judicially separated wife or husband, son or unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, adopted son or daughter, etc. are sought to be brought into association with the deceased government servant. The context requires that association or connection of such persons with the deceased government servant must be direct and not remote. The said Rule requires that the family member must have a close nexus with the deceased government servant, and must have been dependent on him during his lifetime. (Para 11.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Central Excise

Supreme Court affirms penalty on 'Zarda' manufacturers for misclassifying product as 'chewing tobacco' for central excise duty. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad v. Urmin Products P. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Excise duty exemption - To determine if a product falls under description "intravenous fluids”, its composition & not its use matters. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Self-assessment of assessee not rendered malafide merely because it was based on a CETSTAT view which was later overturned. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512 : AIR 2023 SC 3219

Mere broad-basing of entries under Central Excise Tariff Act, cannot justify re-classification, without change in nature, character or use of the product. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Central Excise Act - No separate notice necessary for recovery of erroneous refund granted. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Central Excise Act - To be "related person", buyer & seller must have direct or indirect interest in each other's business. Bilag Industries P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Daman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Only retail sale can claim assessment benefits under Section 4A of Central Excise Act. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223 : (2023) 2 SCR 1147

Supreme Court upholds Sec 9D Central Excise & Salt Act; Asks cigarette company to pay Rs 5 lakh cost for cancer affected children. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Central Excise Act, 1944

Central Excise Act, 1944 - In order to determine whether a product would fall under the description of “Intravenous Fluids” so as to be eligible for exemption from excise duty, it is the composition of the product in question which is relevant and not whether the product is used for treatment of any particular disease. The veterinary products 'Calcium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)' and 'Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection (I.P.) (Vet.)' manufactured by the assessee fell under the description of “Intravenous Fluids”, and thus were eligible for exemption from excise duty. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Denis Chem Lab Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650

Central Excise Act, 1944 - No separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of erroneous refund - Once the order in original sanctioning the refund came to be set aside in a proceeding under Section 35E of the Act and the proceedings under Section 35E was initiated within the time prescribed under Section 35E of the Act, thereafter there is no question of any further notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co.Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 259

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 4(A) - For a sale of goods to qualify for assessment benefits under Section 4(A) of the Act, it must be a retail sale, and there must be a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix a retail price on the goods for a sale to be considered a retail sale. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service v. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223 : (2023) 2 SCR 1147

Central Excise Act, 1994; Section 4(4)(c) - Test to determine "related party"- buyer and seller had to be interested in one another's businesses. Since two-way traffic is required, there shouldn't be any one-way traffic. Bilag Industries P. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Daman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 11A(1) - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the CESTAT by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time barred. The court dismissed the contention that Reliance had deliberately suppressed and withheld material information and documents from the departmental officers by not filing the same and thus, the ground for invoking the extended period of limitation available under the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available to the Department. The bench held that during the relevant period in consideration, i.e., September 2000 to March 2004, Reliance was holding a bonafide belief that it was correctly discharging its duty liability by relying on the CESTAT's decision dated 28.7.2000 in the case of M/s IFGL Refractories Ltd, even though the same was overturned by the Supreme Court on 9.8.2005. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - Supreme Court endorses Delhi High Court judgment upholding Section 9D - Pulls up cigarette company for protracting proceedings - Asks it to pay Rs 5 lakh cost to any charitable organisation involved in providing help, assistance and relief to children suffering from cancer. GTC Industries Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 107

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Mere broad-basing of entries under the Act, cannot justify re-classification, without a change in the nature, character or use of the product. The revenue department was not justified in seeking to re-open the settled position in relation to the classification of a product, merely on the ground of the amendment made to the Central Excise Tariff in the year 2012, which had made certain changes in Chapter 30 and Chapter 33. While holding that the said changes had no impact on the product in question, the court by applying the twin test of 'common/commercial parlance test' and the 'ingredients test', held that the said product merited classification as 'medicament' under Chapter 30 and not as 'cosmetic or toilet preparations' under Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Act. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 397

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines - Portable - Weight cannot be the sole factor to determine the factum of portability. Instead, the essential ingredients to logically establish whether an ADP is 'portable' are (1) their ability to be carried around easily which includes all aspects such as weight and their dimensions- In appropriate cases, this assessment would also take into consideration the necessary accessories which are required for safe and efficient usage such as mounted stands or any power adapters (1) the ADP must be suitable for daily transit of a consumer and would include aspects such as durability to withstand frequent commute and damage protection - The Concerned Goods are not portable for the reasons (1) the diagonal dimension of the Concerned Goods being minimum of the length of 18.5 inches and the same needs to be transported along with the power cable as well as the applicable stand in most cases if it is to be mounted and (2) there being no protective case designed by the markets for daily transport for these Concerned Goods. Such requirements make the Concerned Goods unable to be carried around easily during daily transit. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 : AIR 2023 SC 498 : (2023) 1 SCR 1123

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Since the customs authorities wanted to classify the goods differently, the burden of proof to showcase the same was on them. (Para 23) Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 : AIR 2023 SC 498 : (2023) 1 SCR 1123

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949; Section 9, 10 - The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF - Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination. (Para 6) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 : AIR 2023 SC 554 : (2023) 1 SCR 961

Citizenship

The Supreme Court sets aside the ex-parte order of the Foreigners Tribunal which declared a woman non-indian. Rashida Begum @ Rashida Khatun v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 85

Centre's decision to bar OCI (Overseas Citizens of India) students from general seats will apply to only those who register as OCIs after 04.03.2021. Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 73 : AIR 2023 SC 903

Civil Law

Cause of action for redemption suit is successive, second suit by mortgagor not barred by default dismissal of first suit. Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Decree of possession can't be passed in favour of plaintiff merely because defendants could not fully establish their title. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 19 : AIR 2023 SC 379 : (2023) 1 SCR 355

Documents can be produced during cross-examination in civil trial to confront the party to suit or witness. Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1061

Error which has to be detected by a long drawn process of reasoning is not an 'error apparent on the face of record' for review. Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506 : AIR 2023 SC 3845 : (2023) 8 SCC 11

Execution petition can't be dismissed as inexecutable merely because property's possession is lost to a third party. Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : AIR 2023 SC 4155

First and second appeal arising out of two suits with same parties & common property in dispute can't be clubbed. Seethamal v. Narayanasamy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 342

For res judicata to apply, the previous suit should have been decided on merits : supreme court explains principles. Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

High Court cannot admit a regular second appeal without framing substantial questions of law. Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688

In the second appeal, the High Court must frame a substantial question of law at the admission stage itself ordinarily. Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : AIR 2023 SC 4794

Judgment debtor can't be allowed to take undue advantage by invoking a plea of lack of jurisdiction at the execution stage. Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920

'Lis Pendens' under O. XXI Rule 102 CPC to transfer after suit's dismissal - Executing Court should determine if transfer was before appeal. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450 : AIR 2023 SC 2567

'Litigants become disillusioned' : Supreme Court expresses anguish at long pendency of civil cases; issues directions for speedy disposals. Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Non-Participation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights has civil consequences. Poonam Anjur Pawar vs Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579

Order 17 Rule 3 CPC - Suit can be decided on merit if there is some material, though it may not be strictly "evidence". Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Order 41 Rule 17 CPC - Appeal can't be dismissed on merits if appellant fails to appear; to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Benny Dsouza v. Melwin Dsouza, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

Order 41 Rule 22 CPC - Cross objections have all trappings of regular appeal; must be considered in full. Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : AIR 2023 SC 3110

Order 41 Rule 23A CPC - Appellate Court can't remand suit for de novo trial merely because a particular evidence has not been adduced. Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Order V Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code requires service of summons with plaint. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. National Building Construction India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Appropriateness of prayer sought is not an issue to be considered while deciding application seeking rejection of plaint. Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Inconsistencies in plaint averments not a sufficient reason to reject plaint. G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - No evidence or merits of controversy can be examined while deciding rejection of plaint. Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. v. Ashok Vidyarthi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint to be rejected if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Order XLI Rule 5 CPC - Mere filing of appeal would not operate as a stay of decree. Sanjiv Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 63

Order XVII Rule 2 CPC - Court can proceed only against an absent party whose evidence has been substantially recorded. Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 653 : AIR 2023 SC 3832

Order XXI Rule 84 CPC - Deposit of 25% of amount by auction purchaser mandatory; balance amount to be paid within fifteen days. Gas Point Petroleum India Ltd. v. Rajendra Marothi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 89 : AIR 2023 SC 936 : (2023) 6 SCC 391 : (2023) 1 SCR 433

Ouster of civil court's jurisdiction won't have retrospective effect to annul a decree validly passed by civil court. Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 109

Plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940

Pleadings - A entitled to take alternative pleas in support of its case - plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas while seeking alternative reliefs. (Para 41, 42) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Read 12 directions issued by the Supreme Court for speedy trial of civil cases. Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Remand order prolongs & delays litigation: Supreme Court explains scope of appellate court's power to remand. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

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

Revenue Dept can't recover refunded cess amount because refund was based on a judgment which was later overruled. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) v. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522

Revenue records won't confer title; in title suit, plaintiff can't succeed by merely pointing out lacunae in defendant's title. P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999

Revision petition under Section 115 CPC cannot be entertained against order of trial court rejecting review of decree. Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 829

Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC not maintainable against refusal to set aside ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13. Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

Section 24 CPC power can be invoked by the common High Court for two or more states even for inter state transfer of suits. Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : AIR 2023 SC 1338

Section 47 CPC - The Executing Court can consider only questions limited to execution of decree; can't go behind decree. Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 936

Security furnished by a judgment debtor in the form of a rented shop belonging to a third party cannot be accepted. Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 473

Should a Judgment be reviewed because it followed a precedent which was later overruled ? Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Substantial questions of law not required to be formulated in second appeals arising out of States of Punjab & Haryana. Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562

Suit for recovery of possession - In a case where the owner of the land filed suit for recovery of possession of his land from the encroacher and once he establishes his title, merely because some structures are erected by the opposite party ignoring the objection, that too without any bona fide belief, denying the relief of recovery of possession would tantamount to allowing a trespasser/encroacher to purchase another man's property against that man's will. (Para 21) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

Suit won't abate for not impleading all Lrs of deceased defendant if estate was substantially represented by other defendants. Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Supreme Court allows asi survey of Gyanvapi mosque without excavation or damage to structure; asks asi to follow "non-invasive" process. Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634

When can one escape the effects of a document despite signing it ? Supreme Court explains plea of 'non est factum'. Ramathal v. K. Rajamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 666 : AIR 2023 SC 3978

Cinema

'Everybody is getting touchy about everything now, tolerance for films, books going down': Supreme Court dismisses plea against 'Adipurush' movie. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Cinema theatres can prohibit viewers from bringing food articles from outside. K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38 : (2023) 5 SCC 786

Cinema Theatres- Supreme Court upholds the right of cinema theatres and multiplexes to prohibit the taking of food and beverages from outside. K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38 : (2023) 5 SCC 786

Right of cinema theatres to prohibit outside food - The condition of entry is imposed as a direct result of the exercise of the right of cinema owners to carry on a business or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The commercial logic of prohibiting movie goers from carrying their own food to the cinema hall is to stimulate and boost a vital aspect of the business – the sale of food and beverages. If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt. While movie goers may have no choice but to sign on the proverbial dotted line (and thereby not carry any food of their own into the theatre) in order to enter the cinema hall and watch a movie of their choice, this does not by itself render the condition of entry unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. (Para 31) K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38 : (2023) 5 SCC 786

Restriction on bringing food and beverages in theatres from outside is not unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. (Para 30) - Whether or not to watch a movie is entirely within the choice of viewers. If viewers seek to enter a cinema hall, they must abide by the terms and conditions subject to which entry is granted. Having reserved the right of admission, it is open to theatre owners to determine whether food from outside the precincts of the cinema hall should be permitted to be carried inside (Para 27) K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 38 : (2023) 5 SCC 786

Cinematograph Act, 1952

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sometimes the cinematic representations may not be an exact replica of text and there has to be a little play in the same. That however, does not go beyond certain limits is a reason why a body has been constituted to look into these aspects under the Act. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955 (Bihar)

Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1955 (Bihar) - Rejection of candidates for not producing original certificates – Held, if a person possesses eligibility before the date of actual selection, he cannot be denied benefit because its proof is produced later. In the present case, the proof is available and true photocopies were on record. The appellants' candidature could not have been rejected merely because the original was not produced before the Commission at the time of interview in particular when such requirement was not mandatory, in view of the manner in which the Rules are couched. (Para 18 & 19) Sweety Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 818

Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 (Odisha)

Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 (Odisha); Rule 7 - Right of Government to Withhold or Withdraw Pension - In reference to the officer/employee, who stood retired from service, inquiry indeed can be initiated against him/her, provided sanction is obtained from the Government and must be during the period of 4 years before such institution and the Explanation added to the scheme of Rules makes it abundantly clear that proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant/pensioner, as the case may be. Suchismita Mishra v. High Court of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 477

Civil Service Regulations (Jammu & Kashmir)

Civil Service Regulations (Jammu & Kashmir); Article 77D - Benefit of Pay Protection - Only exception carved out to Article 77D was in respect of a government servant holding a post on ad-hoc basis or working against leave/suspension or any other short-term vacancy. There is a difference between a tenure post and an appointment made on a regular post on a tenure basis. The appointment to the post of Lecturer at Academic Staff College was not against a short-term vacancy as it was a substantive post on a tenure basis and hence the exception under the third proviso to Article 77D will not apply. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to pay protection. (Para 10) Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 649

Civil Service Rules

Civil Service Rules (Karnataka); Rule 20 Note 4 - As per the language of the said Rule, the lien of a government servant on the previous post stands protected till his or her continuation on probation period on the new post. The intention of the said rule is clear, viz., to protect the past service of the government servant in cases where the government servant is not confirmed or absorbed substantively on the new post on account of his/her failure to satisfactorily complete the probation period or for any other reason. (Para 19) L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748

Civil Service Rules (Karnataka); Rule 252(b) - 'Relieving order' cannot be treated as resignation. The said Rule makes it clear that if another appointment is taken up by a government servant with proper permission, then it cannot be termed as resignation of public service. (Para 20) L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748

Coal

Policy of inter-plant transfer of coal by coal india a “change in law event” : supreme court grants relief to haryana distribution companies. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 339

State Government can be 'person interested' in getting compensation under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51 : AIR 2023 SC 668 : (2023) 4 SCC 343 : (2023) 1 SCR 1055

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957; Section 2(d), 11 - The State Government being the original owner can be said to be deemed lessor - The State Government can be said to be the 'person interested' in getting the compensation. (Para 5) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51 : AIR 2023 SC 668 : (2023) 4 SCC 343 : (2023) 1 SCR 1055

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957; Section 18(a) - The compensation/rental payable with respect to the lands by the lessee/deemed lessee is altogether different than the royalty. Royalty is for extraction of minerals in the lands in question - The amount of royalty cannot be mixed with the compensation/loss caused to the State Government due to loss of land and surface land rent as the State Government is entitled for the adequate compensation. (Para 5.1, 6) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 51 : AIR 2023 SC 668 : (2023) 4 SCC 343 : (2023) 1 SCR 1055

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Civil Trial - Fixing of the date of trial shall be in consultation with the learned advocates appearing for the parties to enable them to adjust their calendar. Once the date of trial is fixed, the trial should proceed accordingly to the extent possible, on day-to-day basis. (Para 2 (v)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Civil Trial - Trial judges of District and Taluka Courts shall as far as possible maintain the diary for ensuring that only such number of cases as can be handled on any given day for trial and complete the recording of evidence so as to avoid overcrowding of the cases and as a sequence of it would result in adjournment being sought and thereby preventing any inconvenience being caused to the stakeholders. (Para 2 (vi)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Delay in civil trial - The statistics relating to the cases pending in each court beyond 5 years shall be forwarded by every presiding officer to the Principal District Judge once in a month who (Principal District Judge/District Judge) shall collate the same and forward it to the review committee constituted by the respective High Courts for enabling it to take further steps. (Para 2 (x)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Delay in civil trial - The Committee so constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the respective States shall meet at least once in two months and direct such corrective measures to be taken by concerned court as deemed fit and shall also monitor the old cases (preferably which are pending for more than 05 years) constantly. (Para 2 (xii)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit for Declaration - In a dispute with respect to determination of title, merely pointing out the lacunae in the defendant's title would not suffice. Having instituted the suit for declaration, the burden of proof rested on the shoulders of the plaintiff to reasonably establish the probability of better title, which the plaintiff in the present case, has manifestly failed to do. (Para 22) P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit for Declaration - Revenue records are not documents of title. The Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit by placing on a higher probative pedestal the revenue entries. (Para 11 - 27) P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 999

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - there is no difference between a party to a suit as a witness and a witness simpliciter - Production of documents for both a party to the suit and a witness as the case may be, at the stage of cross-examination, is permissible within law. (Para 32) Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1061

Section 2 (11) - 'legal representative'

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 2 (11) - 'legal representative' - On the death of a party to the suit it is the legal representative who is/are entitled to prosecute the proceedings and, in law, represent the estate of the deceased. The legal representative who is brought on record not only includes a legatee under a Will but also an intermeddler of the property who would be entitled to sue and to be sued and/or continue to prosecute the proceedings. (Para 3) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Section 10 - Stay of Suit

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 10 - Stay of Suit - By virtue of Section 10 CPC, a Court is prohibited from proceeding with trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit, of course, subject to other conditions mentioned therein. The object of the prohibition contained in Section 10 CPC is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and to avoid inconsistent findings. However, this rule of procedure is held not affecting the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and deal with the latter suit and does not create a bar to the institution of the suit. The Courts have also consistently held that Section 10 CPC does not create a bar to the passing of interlocutory orders including those of injunction. (Para 17) State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Section 11 - Res Judicata

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res judicata - An order closing the proceedings is not final decision of the suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 17 Rule 3 resply of the CPC - will not operate as res judiciata. (Para 55) Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judiciata - The general principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC contain rules of conclusiveness of judgment, but for res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit. (Para 34) Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - Guiding principles summarized. (Para 33) Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Section 24 - General power of transfer and withdrawal

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24, 25 - The power under section 24 of the CPC can be exercised by the High Court even for inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, if it is the common High Court for two or more States under Article 231 of the Constitution and both the Civil Courts (transferor and transferee) are subordinate to it - Section 25 applies to inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding where both States have a High Court in terms of Article 214 of the Constitution and not to a transfer where both States have a common High Court under Article 231 thereof. (Para 48) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : AIR 2023 SC 1338

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - Transfer Petition - Rejected petitioner's contention that since all his witnesses are from Siliguri (West Bengal), language could be a barrier - In a country as diverse as India, it is no doubt true that people speak different languages. There are at least 22 (twenty-two) official languages. However, Hindi being the national language, it is expected of the witnesses who would be produced by the petitioner before the MACT, Fatehgarh, U.P. to communicate and convey their version in Hindi. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, it is the claimants who would be seriously prejudiced not being in a position to communicate and convey their version in Bengali. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Section 33 - Judgment and decree

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 33, Order XX Rule 4(2), 5; Order XLI Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 - Remand - High Court passed order of remand observing that the judgment of the trial court was not written as per the mandate of Section 33 and Rule 4(2) and 5 of Order XX of the Code, as the discussion and reasoning on certain aspects was not detailed and elaborate - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: This is not a case where the evidence is not adduced and on record. In fact, the first portion of the judgment of the High Court elaborately records the contention of the parties and the facts and evidence relied by the parties - First appeal restored before High Court. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Section 47 - Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 - Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree - Section 47 of CPC confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Executing Court to prevent unnecessary litigation and to achieve speedy disposal of the questions arising in relation to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450 : AIR 2023 SC 2567

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 read with Order XXI - An execution proceeding works in different stages and if the judgment debtors have failed to take an objection and have allowed the preliminary stage to come to an end and the matter has moved to the next stage, the judgment debtors cannot raise the objection subsequently, and revert back to an earlier stage of the proceeding. (Para 7) Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 936

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 read with Order XXI - Executing Court can only go into questions that are limited to the execution of decree and can never go behind the decree. (Para 5) Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 936

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 read with Order XXI - Executing court cannot go beyond the decree. As a matter of course, an Executing Court is enjoined with the duty to give effect to the decree. Any interference, including on a question involving jurisdiction, should be undertaken very sparsely as a matter of exception. The onus lies heavily on the judgment-debtor to convince the Court that a decree is inexecutable. When an exercise is likely to involve a factual adjudication, it should better be avoided. (Para 14) Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 read with Order XXI - Pure civil matters take a long time to be decided, and regretfully it does not end with a decision, as execution of a decree is an entirely new phase in the long life of a civil litigation. The inordinate delay, which is universally caused throughout India in the execution of a decree, has been a cause of concern with this Court for several years. (Para 6) Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 936

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 read with Order XXI - The conduct of a party assumes significance. If a party is likely to have an undue advantage, despite the availability of an opportunity to raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction at an earlier point of time, it should not be permitted to do so during the execution proceedings. In other words, a plaintiff shall not be made to suffer by the passive act of the defendant in submitting to the jurisdiction. (Para 15) Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920

Section 89 - Settlement of disputes outside the Court

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 89 (1) - In the event of the party's failure to opt for ADR namely resolution of dispute as prescribed under Section 89(1) the court should frame the issues for its determination within one week preferably, in the open court. (Para 2 (iv)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Section 96 - Appeal from original decree

Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Sections 96 and 100 - a first appeal and a second appeal arising out of two proceedings cannot be clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment even though the parties are essentially the same and the property in dispute is common. Seethamal v. Narayanasamy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 342

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day's delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. (Para 5) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 and Order XLI - The court of first appeal has a duty to record its findings qua all the issues raised before it, and in cases where the High Court fails to do the same, the matter must be remanded to the same court again for fresh adjudication. (Para 20-22) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : AIR 2023 SC 3110

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96, 149 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - Being short of sufficient funds to pay court fee is not a reason to condone delay in filing appeal - In such a scenario, an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. (Para 5-10) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Section 100 - Second Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in exceptional circumstances. Post such framing of questions the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on such questions, i.e., after giving them adequate time to meet and address them. It is only after such hearing subsequent to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided. (Para 27.1) Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : AIR 2023 SC 4794

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - In ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with finding of fact, however, if it does find any compelling reason to do so as regard in law, it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought to be upturned. In other words, when overturning findings of fact, the Court will be required to call for the records of the Trial Court or if placed on record, peruse the same and only then question the veracity of the conclusions drawn by the Court below. (Para 27.2) Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 : AIR 2023 SC 4794

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Second appeal can be entertained by the High Court only if the case involves a 'substantial question of law'. (Para 12 – 14) Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : AIR 2023 SC 4810

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - Punjab Courts Act, 1918; Section 41 - In appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of CPC. (Para 8, 9) Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC - Ordinarily, in a second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court. However, this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone - Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such finding. (Para 14, 15) Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - High Court cannot admit regular second appeal without framing substantial questions of law. Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688

Section 114 - Review

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114; Order XLVII Rule 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII of Part IV - An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record - An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (Para 9-15) Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 506 : AIR 2023 SC 3845 : (2023) 8 SCC 11

Section 115 - Revision

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 115 - Where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed. (Para 28) Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 829

Section 149 - Power to make up deficiency of court-fees

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 149 - Court Fees Act 1870; Section 4 - Section 149 CPC acts as an exception, or even a proviso to Section 4 of Court Fees Act - In terms of Section 4, an appeal cannot be filed before a High Court without court fee, if the same is prescribed - But an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Order 2 Rule 2 - Suit to include the whole claim

Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Order II Rule 2 - A suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action. Hence, second suit filed claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable after a suit for possession. (Para 17) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ATM Constructions Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

Order 5 Rule 2 - Copy of plaint annexed to summons

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order V Rule 2 - Service contemplated in terms of Order V Rule 2 of the Code would imply service of summons along with the copy of the plaint. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. National Building Construction India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 800

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order V Rule 2 - All courts at district and taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and same shall be monitored by Principal District Judges and after collating the statistics they shall forward the same to be placed before the committee constituted by the High Court for its consideration and monitoring. (Para 2 (i)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Order 6 Rule 4 - Particulars to be given where necessary

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 4, Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 - Hyderabad Jagir Abolition Regulation, 1358 - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Telangana High Court, upholding the title of successors of Ryot Cultivators over the Paigah lands in Hydernagar, Telangana, who had obtained title to the said lands from their predecessors. The court dismissed the claim of title raised by rival claimants/appellants, including M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd, on the ground that it was a Mathruka property of the late Nawab Khurshid Jah, who was granted a Paigah by the Nizam of Hyderabad. The Apex Court further ruled that no party to a suit for partition, even by way of compromise, can acquire any title to any specific item of property or any particular portion of a specific property, if such a compromise is struck only with a few parties to the suit. Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - In dealing with prayers for amendment of the pleadings the Courts should avoid hyper technical approach. But at the same time, we should keep reminded of the position that the same cannot be granted on the mere request through an application for amendment of the written statement, especially at the appellate stage. (Para 14) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. (Para 38) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - A plaint which falls within the teeth of the conditions laid down under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC is liable to be rejected at the threshold for which the plaint allegations alone are required to be considered and nothing else. (Para 12) ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378 : AIR 2023 SC 2140

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into. When the ground pleaded for rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint - Merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. The question was whether the plaint discloses the cause of action. (Para 6-9) G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Plaint cannot be rejected in part. (Para 11) Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected. (Para 7) Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - The High Court committed an error by examining the merits of the matter. It pre-judged the truth, legality and validity of the sale deed under which the Defendants claim title. The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. (Para 10) Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940

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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - While deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint only are required to be considered and not the averments in the written statement - Plaint is ought to be rejected when it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting. (Para 5-8) Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - No amount of evidence or merits of the controversy can be examined at the stage of decision of the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. (Para 26) Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. v. Ashok Vidyarthi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1033

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Whether an appropriate prayer should have sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit and not an issue to be considered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. (Para 5) Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11, Order XII Rule 6 - Rejection of Election Petition - Judgement on Admissions - A plain look at the election petition reveals that apart from allegations pertaining to non-disclosure of criminal cases pending against the appellant, or cases where he was convicted, other averments and allegations have been made regarding non-compliance with stipulations regarding information dissemination and the manner of dissemination through publication in newspapers, the font size, the concerned newspapers' reach amongst the populace, etc. The alleged noncompliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations (in the context of provisions of law and the non-disclosure of all other particulars mandated by the Election Symbols orders) has to be considered after a full trial. The admission of certain facts (and not all) by the election petitioner cannot be sufficient for the court to reject the petition, wholly. Even in respect of the undeniable nature of the judicial record, the effect of its content is wholly inadequate to draw a decree in part. (Para 26) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : AIR 2023 SC 3574

Order 7 Rule 14 - Production of documents

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1A(4)(a) and Order XIII Rule 1(3), all three of which, while dealing with the production of documents, by the plaintiff, defendant and in general, respectively, exempt documents to be produced for the limited purpose of cross-examination or jogging the memory of the witness. (Para 31) Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1061

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 14(4), Order VIII Rule 1A(4)(a) and Order XIII Rule 1(3) - Documents can be produced during cross-examination in civil trial to confront party to suit or witness. Save and except the cross-examination part of a civil suit, at no other point shall such confrontation be allowed, without such document having accompanied the plaint or written statement filed before the court. (Para 31) Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1061

Order 8 Rule 1 - Written Statement

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section VIII Rule 1 - All courts at District and Taluka level shall ensure that written statement is filed within the prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC. (Para 2 (ii)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Order 8 Rule 6A - Counter-claim by defendant

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A - An inter-se dispute on the validity of the sale deed executed between the defendants in respect of the suit land, cannot be considered in the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in its favour, as it would amount to adjudication of a right or a claim by way of counter-claim by one defendant against his co-defendant, which cannot be permitted by virtue of Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6–A (4) - A counter-claim is a virtually a plaint and an independent suit. (Para 12) ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 378 : AIR 2023 SC 2140

Order 9 - Appearance of Parties and Consequence of non-Appearance

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX - When the defendant counsel had withdrawn his Vakalatnama, in normal course, the Trial Court ought to have issued notice to the defendants to engage another counsel. (Para 21) Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 653 : AIR 2023 SC 3832

Order 9 Rule 9 - Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 9 - If the right of redemption is not extinguished, the provision like Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC will not debar the mortgagor from filing a second suit because as in a partition suit, the cause of action in a redemption suit is a recurring one. The cause of action in each successive action, until the right of redemption is extinguished or a suit for redemption is time barred, is a different one. (Para 61, 62) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 9 Rule 9 - It was not the intention of the Legislature to bar the subsequent suits between the parties and the same was evident by the qualifying words, “same cause of action”. Therefore, everything depends upon the cause of action and in case the subsequent cause of action arose from a totally different bunch of facts, such suit cannot be axed by taking shelter to the provision of Order IX Rule 9 of CPC. (Para 52) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Order 9 Rule 13 - Setting aside Decree ex parte

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 and Section 92 (2) - Ex-parte decree - As against the ex-parte decree, a defendant has three remedies available to him. First, is by way of filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking for setting aside ex-parte decree; the second, is by way of filing an appeal against the ex-parte decree under Section 96(2) of the CPC and the third, is by way of review before the same court against the ex-parte decree. (Para 12) Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 and Section 92 (2) - Ex-parte decree - The filing of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as well as the filing of appeal under Section 96(2) of the CPC against the ex-parte decree are concurrent remedies available to a defendant. However, once the appeal preferred by the defendant against the ex-parte decree is dismissed, except when it is withdrawn, the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 CPC cannot be pursued. Conversely, if an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is rejected, an appeal as against the ex-parte decree can be preferred and continued under Section 96(2) of the CPC. Thus, an appeal against an ex-parte decree even after the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is maintainable. (Para 13) Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLIII Rule 1(d) - Ex-parte decree - Against the order passed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC rejecting an application for seeking setting aside the decree passed exparte, an appeal is provided. When an application is filed seeking condonation of delay for seeking setting aside an ex-parte decree and the same is dismissed and consequently, the petition is also dismissed, the appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC is maintainable. Thus, an appeal only against the refusal to set aside the ex-parte decree is maintainable whereas if an order allowing such an application is passed, the same is not appealable. (Para 15) Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13, Order XLIII Rule 1 and Section 115 - Ex-parte decree - Appeal from orders and Revision – When an application or petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is dismissed, the defendant can avail a remedy by preferring an appeal in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC would not arise when an application/petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is dismissed. Thus, when an alternative and effective appellate remedy is available to a defendant, against an ex-parte decree, it would not be appropriate for the defendant to resort to filing of revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the order refusing to set aside the order of setting the defendant ex-parte. In view of the appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC being available, revision under Section 115 of the CPC filed in the instant case was not maintainable. (Para 16) Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

Order 10 - Examination of Parties by the Court

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order X and Section 89 (1) - All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after the pleadings are complete, the parties should be called upon to appear on the day fixed as indicated in Order X and record the admissions and denials and the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt for either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 89 and at the option of the parties shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority and in the event of the parties opting to any one of the modes of settlement directions be issued to appear on the date, time and venue fixed and the parties shall so appear before such authority/forum without any further notice at such designated place and time and it shall also be made clear in the reference order that trial is fixed beyond the period of two months making it clear that in the event of ADR not being fruitful, the trial would commence on the next day so fixed and would proceed on day-to-day basis. (Para 2 (iii)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Order 11 - Discovery and Inspection, Admissions

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XI and XII - The counsels representing the parties may be enlightened of the provisions of Order XI and Order XII so as to narrow down the scope of dispute and it would be also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by virtual mode. (Para 2 (vii)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Order 17 Rule 1 - Adjournment

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XVII Rule 1 - The trial courts shall scrupulously, meticulously and without fail comply with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XVII and once the trial has commenced it shall be proceeded from day to day as contemplated under the proviso to Rule (2). (Para 2 (viii)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XVII Rule 1 - Costs of Adjournment - The courts shall give meaningful effect to the provisions for payment of cost for ensuring that no adjournment is sought for procrastination of the litigation and the opposite party is suitably compensated in the event of such adjournment is being granted. (Para 2 (ix)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Order 17 Rule 2 - Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XVII Rule 2 - Any party” refers to the party which has led evidence or substantial evidence and “such party” refers to that very party which has led evidence or substantial evidence - Under Order XVII Rule 2, the Court would proceed to pass orders with respect to any of the parties being absent or both the parties being absent. Whereas the explanation is confined to record the presence of that party and that party alone, which has led evidence or substantial evidence and has thereafter failed to appear. (Para 19) Y.P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 653 : AIR 2023 SC 3832

Order 17 Rule 3 - Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 17 Rule 3 - The power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC to decide the suit on the merits for the default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts the remedy of the unsuccessful party for redress. It has to be used only sparingly in exceptional cases. Physical presence without preparedness to co-operate for anything connected with the progress of the case serves no useful purpose in deciding the suit on the merits and it is worse than absence. There must be some materials for a decision on the merits, even though the materials may not be technically interpreted as evidence. Sometimes the decision in such cases. (Para 52) Prem Kishore v. Brahm Prakash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 266

Order 20 - Judgment and Decree

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX - At conclusion of trial the oral arguments shall be heard immediately and continuously and judgment be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC. (Para 2 (ix)) Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Order 20 Rule 18 - Decree in suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; Section 121 - Instrument of Partition - For the purpose of interpreting Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act, the Court can safely draw an analogy from the provisions contained in Order XX, Rule 18 C.P.C. which pertain to the procedure to be followed on the passing of the decree for the partition of the property. (Para 28) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XX Rule 18 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; Section 121 - When a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the “decree”. (Para 30) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074

Order 21 - Execution of Decrees and Orders

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Liability to pay interest on money deposited by judgment debtor-f the amount is deposited, or paid to the decree holder or person entitled to it, the person entitled to the amount cannot later seek interest on it-This is a rule of prudence, inasmuch as the debtor, or person required to pay or refund the amount, is under an obligation to ensure that the amount payable is placed at the disposal of the person entitled to receive it. Once that is complete (in the form of payment, through different modes, including tendering a Banker's Cheque, or Pay Order or Demand Draft, all of which require the account holder / debtor to pay the bank, which would then issue the instrument) the tender, or 'payment' is complete. (Para 31) K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68 : AIR 2023 SC 705

Order 21 Rule 32 - Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 32 - It cannot be said that nonparticipation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights is absolutely impactless. In fact, it has civil consequences - Transfer petition filed by wife allowed. Poonam Anjur Pawar vs Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 579

Order 21 Rule 84 - Deposit by purchaser and re-sale on default

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 84, 85 - The deposit of 25% of the amount by the purchaser other than the decree-holder is mandatory and the full amount of the purchase money must be paid within fifteen days from the date of the sale - If the payment is not made within the period of fifteen days, the Court has the discretion to forfeit the deposit, and there the discretion ends but the obligation of the Court to resell the property is imperative - The provisions of the rules requiring the deposit of 25 per cent of the purchase money immediately, on the person being declared as a purchaser and the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale are mandatory and upon noncompliance with these provisions there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a purchaser without depositing 25 per cent of the purchase money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days. When there is no sale within the contemplation of these rules, there can be no question of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Non-payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a complete nullity. (Para 8-9) Gas Point Petroleum India Ltd. v. Rajendra Marothi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 89 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326

Order 21 Rules 97 - Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 - Executing Court cannot dismiss an execution petition against the judgment-debtor by treating the decree for possession as inexecutable, merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession of the immovable property to a third party/encroacher. It was the duty of the Executing Court to issue warrant of possession for effecting physical delivery of the suit land to the decree-holder. Further, if any resistance is offered by any stranger/ encroacher to the decree, the same has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court in accordance with Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI CPC. Unless this procedure is adopted, the Executing Court could not have closed the execution proceedings by observing that the decree is inexecutable. (Para 15) Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : AIR 2023 SC 4155

Order 21 Rule 102 - Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 102 - the Executing Court would have to determine upon evidence whether the transfer of immovable property which was made post dismissal of suit, was made after institution of appeal/further litigation or not, in order to attract the principle of lis pendens. Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 450 : AIR 2023 SC 2567

Order 22 Rule 2 - Procedure where one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies and right to sue survives.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2 - Suit can't be held to be abated in the event of death of one of the defendants, when the estate/interest was being fully and substantially represented in the suit jointly by the other defendants along with deceased defendant and when they are also his legal representatives - In such cases, by reason of non-impleadment of all other legal heirs consequential to the death of the said defendant, the defendants could not be heard to contend that the suit should stand abated on account of non-substitution of all the other legal representatives of the deceased defendant. (Para 36) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Order 22 Rule 3 – Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 3 – Advocate appearing for the Defendant could have signed the compromise petition without an express consent. It is an imperative duty of the Court to ascertain the genuineness and lawfulness of the compromise deed. (Para 100) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 3 - When a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a completed agreement between them-. In a suit for partition of joint property, a decree by consent amongst some only of the parties cannot be maintained. (Para 93, 94) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Order 23 Rule 1 - Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 23 Rule 1 - A writ petition, filed pursuant to withdrawal of a civil suit for the same relief when liberty is not granted to file afresh, is not maintainable. The principles of constructive res judicata laid down in Order 23 Rule 1 CPC would also apply to writ proceedings. (Para 38) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : AIR 2023 SC 3425

Order 26 Rule 10 - Procedure of Commissioner

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 10 - Procedure of Commissioner - In terms of Order XXVI Rule 10, the Commissioner has to submit a report in writing to the court. The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him constitute evidence in the suit and form a part of the record. However, the court and, with its permission, any of the parties may examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in the report or as regards the report including the manner in which the investigation has been made. The court is also empowered to direct such further inquiry if it is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner. The evidentiary value of any report of the Commissioner is a matter to be tested in the suit and is open to objections including cross-examination. A report of the Commissioner does not by and of itself amount to a substantive finding on matters in dispute and is subject to the process of the court during the course of the trial. (Para 14) Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Order 41 Rule 5 - Stay by Appellate Court. Stay by Court which passed the decree.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 5 - Unless the appeal is listed and there is an interim order, the mere filing of the appeal would not operate as a stay. Sanjiv Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 63

Order 41 Rule 17 - Dismissal of appeal for appellant's default

Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Order XLI Rule 17 - If the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for a hearing, then the same can be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits. Benny Dsouza v. Melwin Dsouza, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

Order 41 Rule 22 - Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred a separate appeal.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 22 - In cases where the decree passed by the court of first instance is in favor of the respondent in whole, in such circumstance, no remedy exists in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal can be vested onto a party, which is successful. However, in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance, is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also partly against the respondent, two remedies within Order 41 Rule 22 remain with the respondent, which are (i) To file their cross objections and, (ii) To support the decree in whole. A third remedy in law also exists, which is the right to file a cross appeal, which will also be discussed in brief - In cases where the opposing party files a first appeal against part or whole of the original decree, and the respondent in the said first appeal, due to part or whole of the decree being in their favour, abstains from filing an appeal at the first instance, in such cases, to ensure that the respondent is also given a fair chance to be heard, he is given the right to file his cross objections within the appeal already so instituted by the other party, against not only the contentions raised by the other party, but also against part or whole of the decree passed by the court of first instance - In a similar circumstance, where the other party in the first instance has preferred an appeal, apart from the remedy of cross objections, the respondent can also file a cross appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party. The respondent also has the right to fully support the original decree passed by the lower court in full. (Para 12-16) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLI Rule 22 - While cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same. (Para 17) Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493

Order 41 Rule 23 - Remand of case by Appellate Court.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 23 - the scope of remand in terms of Rule 23 of Order XLI CPC is extremely limited. (Para 11.2) Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 23 - There can be no doubt with respect to the settled position that the Court to which the case is remanded has to comply with the order of remand and acting contrary to the order of remand is contrary to law. In other words, an order of remand has to be followed in its true spirit. (Para 7) Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 23, 23A, 24 and 25 - Remand - An order of remand prolongs and delays the litigation and hence, should not be passed unless the appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the evidence on record is not sufficient to dispose of the matter for reasons like lack of adequate opportunity of leading evidence to a party, where there had been no real trial of the dispute or there is no complete or effectual adjudication of the proceedings, and the party complaining has suffered material prejudice on that account. Where evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be rendered on appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand should not be passed remitting the matter to the lower court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is essential. The first appellate court, if required, can also direct the trial court to record evidence and finding on a particular aspect/issue in terms of Rule 25 to Order XLI, which then can be taken on record for deciding the case by the appellate court. Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 112

Order 41 Rule 23A - Remand in other cases

Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Order 41 Rule 23A - Necessary requirement for remand under Rule 23A is that the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary - the reversal has to be based on cogent reasons and for that matter, adverting to and dealing with the reasons that had prevailed with the Trial Court remains a sine qua non. (Para 11.2) Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Order 43 Rule 1 - Appeals from orders.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLIII Rule 1(d) and Section 115 - Appeal from orders and Revision – When there is an express provision available under the CPC or any statute under which an appeal is maintainable, by-passing the same, a Revision Petition cannot be filed. (Para 17) Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1056

Order 47 Rule 1 - Application for review of judgment.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 47 Rule 1 - Is the subsequent overruling of a precedent relied on in a judgment a ground to review it ? - 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

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - Scope of Review - Even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself to be an “aggrieved person,” may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Court in some respect. (Para 7) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939 : AIR 2023 SC 5636

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - Scope of Review - (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision / judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. (Para 16) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939 : AIR 2023 SC 5636

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Scope of Review - Any passing reference of the impugned judgment made by the Bench of the equal strength could not be a ground for review. A co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength and that subsequent decision or a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. (Para 20, 24) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939 : AIR 2023 SC 5636

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1, Rule 9 - The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court where the court had held that where the assessee had been held entitled to the refund of the Educational cess and Secondary & Higher Educational cess on the basis of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in M/s SRD Nutrients (P) Limited vs. CCE, (2018) 1 SCC 105, which was applicable at the relevant time, the Revenue Department was not entitled to make recovery of the said refunded amount on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492, where the decision in M/s SRD Nutrients was overruled by the top court. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) v. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522

Collegium

Centre must stop 'pick & choose' approach to collegium proposals : Supreme Court deprecates 'selective' appointments of Judges. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 985

Community Certificate

A community certificate in cases of scheduled tribe communities, unlike any other piece of paper, is an acknowledgment of a person belonging to a community which has faced years of oppression. The Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to people from Scheduled Tribe communities on grounds of historical injustice, and for the translation of such rights from paper to real life, the community certificate in most cases becomes an essential document. This certificate, whilst being an acknowledgment of history, is also a document that tries to rectify such historical injustice by becoming a tool that fabricates constitutional rights into reality. In such a scenario where the validity of a community certificate is put to question, keeping in mind the importance of the document and the effect it has on people's rights, the proceedings questioning the document cannot, except in the most exceptional circumstances, be done ex-parte. (Para 22) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037

Affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case - Affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241 : AIR 2023 SC 1657

Affinity test not essential to determine correctness of caste/tribe claim. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 241 : AIR 2023 SC 1657

Community Certificate verification must be completed expeditiously; shouldn't be cancelled ex-parte except in most exceptional circumstances. R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037

Court is appalled at the treatment given to the Appellant by the Respondents herein. The Appellant, before applying to the post reserved for ST candidates supplied all documents required in support of his claim as a ST candidate, and got the documents verified and approved. After being given employment however, the re-evaluation of the authenticity of the documents of the Appellant have been kept pending for 19 years, dangling like a sword on the Appellants head. (Para 13) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037

Community Certificate - The exercise of verification of community certificate must be completed expeditiously. (Para 16) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037

Company Law

Companies Act - Decision to allot additional shares cannot be set aside merely because promoters have also benefited. Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel v. Ambika Food Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 490 : AIR 2023 SC 2977

Section 140(5) Companies Act 2013 is constitutional; resignation of auditor won't end proceedings under Sec 140(5). Union of India v. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2023 SC 2576

No priority for workers' dues after liquidation of company under IBC: Supreme Court upholds Section 327(7) of Companies Act 2013. Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Supreme Court allows disbursal of Rs 5000 Crores from “SEBI-Sahara Fund” to depositors; Former SC Judge to monitor disbursement. Pinak Pani Mohanty vs Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of Schedule III of Sebi Stock Broker Regulations. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222 : (2023) 2 SCR 737

Rehabilitation scheme under SICA binds all creditors; dues can't be recovered post revival of sick company. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Adani-Hindenburg Issue: Supreme Court directs SEBI to conclude investigation in 2 months, constitutes expert committee to review regulatory framework. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160 : AIR 2023 SC 1196 : (2023) 4 SCC 332 : (2023) 2 SCR 951

Adani-Hindenburg : Know the members of the expert committee constituted by the Supreme Court to review regulatory mechanism. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160 : AIR 2023 SC 1196 : (2023) 4 SCC 332 : (2023) 2 SCR 951

Adani-Hindenburg - Formation Of Expert Committee Does Not Divest SEBI Of Its Responsibilities In Continuing Investigation. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 160 : AIR 2023 SC 1196 : (2023) 4 SCC 332 : (2023) 2 SCR 951

Company Secretary's Liability: Supreme Court says compliance officer should ensure compliance with SEBI's buyback regulations. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. V. Shankar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 101

Section 59 Companies Act 2013 - NCLT cannot excercise parallel jurisdiction with SEBI for addressing violations of SEBI Regulations. IFB Agro Industries Ltd. v. SICGIL India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8 : AIR 2023 SC 247 : (2023) 4 SCC 209 : (2023) 1 SCR 527

Companies Act, 1956

Companies Act, 1956; Section 81 - The Supreme Court has upheld the largely disproportionate allotment of rights share in favour of one group of shareholders of a private limited company, substantially increasing its shareholding percentage in the company over other group of shareholders. The court held that though Section 81(3) of Companies Act, 1956 expressly exempts a private limited company from the purview of Section 81, which deals with further issue of capital; however, notwithstanding the same, the conduct of the Directors is to be judged on a higher yardstick. The court, however, remarked that the fact that the Directors may also benefit from a decision taken primarily with the intention to promote the interest of the Company, cannot vitiate the decision. Thus, even though the Directors who constituted the said shareholders' group, benefited and made a gain from the implementation of a decision taken primarily with a view to safeguard the interest of the Company, it cannot by itself render the decision vulnerable to attack. Hasmukhlal Madhavlal Patel v. Ambika Food Products Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 490 : AIR 2023 SC 2977

Companies Act, 1956; Sections 529, 529A, 530 - Customs Act, 1962; Sections 61, 72, 142, 142A - In case of winding up of a company, the customs duty owed by the company would be treated as a preferential payment under Section 530(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956. But customs duty would not override and be given preference over the payments due to overriding preferential creditors covered under Section 529A of the Companies Act, which include the secured creditors. The Customs Act, 1962 does not create a statutory first charge on the customs dues, overriding the charge created in favour of the secured creditor under Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683

Companies Act, 2013

Companies Act, 2013 - Upholds the constitutionality of Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, which excludes workers dues from priority payment in the event of liquidation of a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - The object and purpose of amending the Companies Act 2013 and to exclude Sections 326 and 327 in the event of liquidation of a company under IBC seem to be that there may not be two different provisions in respect to the winding up/ liquidation of a company. Therefore, in view of the enactment of the IBC, it was necessary to exclude the applicability of Section 326 and 327 of the 2013 Act, which cannot be said to be arbitrary, as contended on behalf of the petitioners. (Para 6) Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Companies Act, 2013; Section 140(5) - Challenge to the constitutional validity of section 140(5) fails - Section 140(5) is neither discriminatory, arbitrary and/or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as alleged - The application/proceedings under section 140(5) of the Act, 2013 is held to be maintainable even after the resignation of the concerned auditors. (Para 16) Union of India v. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 388 : AIR 2023 SC 2576

Competition Act, 2002

Competition Act, 2002 - Coal India Ltd. would come under the purview of the Act despite being a Public Sector Undertaking. Coal India Ltd v. Competition Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 484 : AIR 2023 SC 3122

Constitution of India

75% eligibility condition for admission to sports quota 'unwarranted & discriminatory'. Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623 : AIR 2023 SC 3723

A Country can't remain prisoner of past': Supreme Court dismisses plea to rename cities named after muslim rulers; stresses on India's secular character. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

A Country can't remain prisoner of the past': Supreme Court dismisses plea to rename cities named after muslim rulers; stresses on India's secular character. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Access to Justice - Fundamental right of Access to Justice - Abolition of OAT does not violate right of access to justice as cases will be heard by High Court - The fundamental right of access to justice is no doubt a crucial and indispensable right under the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be interpreted to mean that every village, town, or city must house every forum of adjudication created by statute or the Constitution. (Para 112) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on the right to free speech. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Article 170 of Constitution not applicable to legislatures of union territories: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Article 19 & 21 rights can be enforced against private individuals & entities: Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Article 20(1) of the Constitution doesn't bar retrospective application of procedural changes in criminal trial. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : AIR 2023 SC 4854

Article 226 - The High Court ought to relegate parties to alternate remedies when there are serious factual disputes. State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887 : AIR 2023 SC 5142

Article 226 - Writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedies when only questions of law are raised. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 : AIR 2023 SC 781

Article 226(2) - Supreme Court explains tests to determine if cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of the High Court. State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247

Article 299 - No immunity from statute merely because a contract is entered in the President's name. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777

Article 30 - Minority educational institution cannot claim exemption from admission & fee regulatory committee. Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

Article 370 A Temporary Provision: Supreme Court upholds abrogation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Article 370 case: won't touch special provisions for North Eastern States or other parts, Centre Tells Supreme Court. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Article 370 Judgment - Constitution amendments through circuitous manner not permissible; Article 368 procedure must be followed. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Article 370 Judgment - Why Supreme Court upheld repeal of J&K special status despite invalidating changes to Article 367 ? Explained. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Can parliamentary law under Article 239AA(7) alter constitutional powers of Delhi govt? issue referred to the Supreme Court constitution bench. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : AIR 2023 SC 3617

Constitution does not prohibit lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court - in fact, the Supreme Court has given imprimatur to the principle that in suitable cases Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court can be considered for appointment to the High Court. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitutional Court - A High Court ~ howsoever big or small, old or new ~ is as much a Constitutional Court as this Court is and enjoys wide ranging powers vested in it by law. (Para 42) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 146 : AIR 2023 SC 1338

Constitutional Tort - A mere statement made by a minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen of Part III of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable as a constitutional tort. But, if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person or citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort. [Justice Nagarathna dissents] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Decide disqualification petitions over Shiv Sena rift by Dec 31; NCP case by Jan 31 : Supreme Court directs Maharashtra Speaker. Sunil Prabhu v. Speaker, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 943

Delhi Chief Secretary, though appointed by Centre, must follow directions of Delhi Govt. on matters over which it has power. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

Delhi Govt vs LG | Democratically elected Govt. should have power to control its officers to ensure accountability. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

Democracy has been held to be a part of one of the essential features of the Constitution. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the right to vote has not been recognized as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right. (Para 27) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to bottom': Supreme Court reprimands Punjab CM, Governor. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Domicile Reservation - Domicile reservation can't be wholesale reservation - Supreme Court asks MP Govt to review its 75% domicile quota in B.Ed seats - though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 364

Excommunication among dawoodi bohras: Supreme Court refers to the nine-judge sabarimala bench. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

Excommunication is subject to constitutional morality, results in civil death': Supreme Court doubts precedent upholding right to excommunicate. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

Floor Test - the decision to call for a floor test should be based on objective material and reasons which are relevant and germane to the exercise of discretion, and not extraneous to it. The Governor should not use their discretionary power to destabilise or displace democratically elected governments. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Fraternity - The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic. We must constantly remind ourselves that courts of law, as indeed every part of the 'State', must be guided by the sublime realisation, that Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution. (Para 11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

GNCTD vs LG: Supreme Court holds Delhi Govt has control over "services" excluding Public Order, Police & Land. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

Governance of States can't be taken over by Union': Supreme Court underscores importance of federalism in Delhi Govt vs LG Case. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

Governor - The discretion vested in the Governor to call for a floor test is not unfettered, and must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. The Governor is a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case, the Governor must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Governor - The power of the Governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an extraordinary nature. The exercise of such power has ramifications on parliamentary democracy. Hence, the ambit of the exercise of such power by the Governor must be calibrated to meet the exigencies of situations where the Governor is satisfied on the basis of objective material that there is sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of their extraordinary power. The discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion but one that must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Governor can't doubt validity of assembly session : Supreme Court asks Punjab Governor to decide on pending bills. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Governor can't veto the legislature by simply withholding assent to bill; must return bill to assembly on withholding assent. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Governors should return bills as soon as possible: Supreme Court observes in Telangana Government's plea against governor. State of Telangana v. Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Have to keep in mind freedom of speech' : Supreme Court dismisses PIL for central govt authority to regulate media. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645

High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, they are constitutional courts. Shankar Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 114

In the absence of specific pleadings, a writ court cannot get into the issues of repugnancy or lack of legislative competence. Unless the statutory provision is declared unconstitutional, its implementation cannot be stopped. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) is a 'State' u/Article 12. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115

It is the "political party" which has the power to appoint a whip and the leader and not the "legislature party". Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Justice Kaul recommends "truth & reconciliation commission" to report human rights violations in Jammu & Kashmir by State & non-State actors. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Justice Victoria Gowri's appointment: Supreme Court rejects argument that collegium was not aware of facts; says no judicial review over suitability. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

Legislature cannot directly overrule a judgment; but can retrospectively remove its foundation to make it ineffective. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

Minister's speech a 'constitutional tort' if it leads to acts of officers harming persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Ministers' Statements in official capacity cannot be vicariously attributed to Govt: Supreme Court; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Minority school not entitled to state grant towards salary for employee retained beyond retirement age. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : AIR 2023 SC 1155 : (2023) 2 SCR 487

National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 - Can parliamentary law under Article 239AA (7) alter constitutional powers of Delhi Government? Issue referred to supreme court constitution bench. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551

No equality in matter of illegality': Supreme Court denies relief to school teacher dismissed for degree through distance education. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271

No one can be penalised for holding an opinion not in confirmity with constitutional values. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Non-tribal person's right to settle down & vote in scheduled areas not taken away by 5th schedule of Constitution. Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

On maintaining civility in discourses between Constitutional functionaries - Political differences in a democratic polity have to be worked upon and sorted out with a sense of sobriety and maturity. The dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be borne in mind, the realization of constitutional values may be placed in jeopardy-We can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship will ensure that such instances do not occur in the future as much as we reiterate our expectation that constitutional functionaries must be cognizant of the public trust in the offices which they occupy. The public trust which is entrusted to them is intended to sub-serve the cause of our citizens and to ensure that the affairs of the nation are conducted with a sense of equanimity so as to accomplish the objects of the Preamble to the Constitution. (Para 26) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

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

Paradoxically, the right to vote isn't a fundamental right though democracy is an essential feature of the constitution. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : AIR 2023 SC 3574

Parliament can carve out a Union Territory from a State; views of state only recommendatory. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Parliament can convert existing State into a Union Territory: Supreme Court in J&K delimitation case. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Parliamentary or State law wouldn't apply to Scheduled V area only if the Governor notifies so. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 851

Petition under article 32 to challenge a binding judgment not maintainable. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179

PIL seeking the inclusion of "Rajasthani" language in the Eighth Schedule - Whether a language should be included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution is a policy decision which has to be taken by the appropriate constitutional authority. (Para 7) Ripudaman Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Plea to rename places named after Muslim rulers - Supreme Court dismisses - The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past- The history of any nation cannot haunt the future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past. (Para 9, 11) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Precedents - While it is open to a learned Judge to differ with a view of a Co-ordinate Bench the sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers being placed before the learned Chief Justice. The learned Judge cannot simply say "with due respect, I do not agree to the ratio..." or “the decision is per incuriam as a binding judgment of the Supreme Court has not been considered….” and proceed to take a contrary view - Such an approach would result in conflicting opinions of Coordinate Benches, resulting in judicial chaos and is, thus, improper. This is something atrocious and unacceptable. (Para 81) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Purse seine fishing - Supreme Court passes restricted interim order allowing the purse-seine fishing beyond the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu but within the Exclusive Economic Zone with conditions. Fisherman Care v. Govt of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 58 : AIR 2023 SC 655

Reconvening a sitting of vidhan sabha which isn't prorogued permissible in law & within exclusive domain of speaker. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Restore statehood of Jammu and Kashmir soon, hold elections to J&K Assembly by September 2024. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Right to Die: Supreme Court makes it easier for persons to opt for passive euthanasia; Simplifies 2018 guidelines on living will/advance directive. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79 : (2023) 1 SCR 1137

Secularism - India, that is 'Bharat' in terms of the preamble, is a secular country- The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State's action. (Para 8, 9) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

'Service as Adhoc Judges can't be considered for elevation as HC Judges': Supreme Court rejects plea of judicial officers from AP. C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : AIR 2023 SC 1214

Shiv Sena rift – At the highest, the various communications expressed the fact that a faction of MLAs disagreed with some policy decisions of the party. The course of action they wished to adopt in order to air their grievances and redress them was, at the time the floor test was directed to be conducted, uncertain. Whether they would choose to enter deliberations with their colleagues in the House or in the political party, or mobilise the cadres, or resign from the Assembly in protest, or opt to merge with another party, was uncertain. Therefore, the Governor erred in relying upon the resolution signed by a faction of the SSLP (Shiv Sena Legislature Party) MLAs to conclude that Mr. Thackeray had lost the support of the majority of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - Governor cannot enter political arena, floor test not to decide intra-party disputes - The Governor could not have entered the internal party dispute by ordering the floor test, particularly in absence of any "objective material" to dislodge the presumption of confidence of House ingrained in a democratically elected government. The letters by some MLAs (or even by then Leader of Opposition in this case) for a direction to the Chief Minister to prove his majority does not, taken alone, amount to a relevant reason to call for a floor test. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled. They certainly do not empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes. It follows from this that the Governor cannot act upon an inference that he has drawn that a section of the Shiv Sena wished to withdraw their support to the Government on the floor of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Shiv Sena rift – Floor Test - the decision taken by the Governor to call for a floor test based on the rebellion of Eknath Shinde-led faction and to direct then CM Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House, was wrong. The Governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government. The resolution on which the Governor relied did not contain any indication that the MLAs wished to exit from the MVA government. The communication expressing discontent on the part of some MLAs is not sufficient for the Governor to call for a floor test. The Governor ought to apply his mind to the communication (or any other material) before him to assess whether the Government seemed to have lost the confidence of the House. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Shiv Sena rift – The Court cannot order the restoration of the Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned without facing a floor test. Since Thackeray voluntarily resigned, the Governor was right in inviting Ekanth Shinde form the government with the support of BJP. Had Mr. Thackeray refrained from resigning from the post of the Chief Minister, this court could have considered the grant of the remedy of reinstating the government headed by him. The Court cannot quash a resignation which was voluntarily tendered. The Governor's earlier decision to order a floor test for the Maha Vikas Aghadi government as well as the Speaker's decision to appoint the whip nominated by Shinde group were incorrect. The correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia is referred to a larger Bench of seven judges. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

State action even in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505 : AIR 2023 SC 3353 : (2023) 8 SCC 240

Supreme Court allows centre to extend term of Delhi Govt Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar; upholds Centre's power to appoint GNCTD Chief Secretary. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1040

Supreme Court Constitution Bench doubts the correctness of the decision in Sardar Syedna Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, 1962 Suppl (2) SCR 496 which struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging the appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri as judge of the Madras High Court - says suitability cannot be a subject matter of judicial review - collegium recommendation cannot be examined on the judicial side. Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking inclusion of Rajasthani language in eighth schedule. Ripudaman Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Supreme Court invalidates GAIL's condition imposed on IPCL, Says writ jurisdiction can be applied when contractual terms are arbitrary. Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326

Supreme Court refers to Constitution Bench Delhi Govt's plea challenging centre's services ordinance. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : AIR 2023 SC 3617

Test identification parade not violative of Article 20(3) of Constitution; accused cannot refuse to join TIP. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703

The citizens residing in rural areas have an equal right to access healthcare services by duly qualified staff. Policies for enhancing access to rural healthcare must not short-change. The citizens residing in rural areas are subjected to direct and indirect forms of discrimination on the basis of their place of birth or residence. Any variation in the standards of the qualifications required of medical practitioners who render services in rural areas qua those rendering services in urban and metropolitan areas circumscribe constitutional values of substantive equality and non-discrimination. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

The Constitution does not prohibit appointment of lawyer practising in the Supreme Court as Judge of High Courts. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

The Court expressed its anguish of the manner in which women have been subjected to grave acts of sexual violence in the course of the sectarian strife in Manipur. Subjecting women to sexual crimes and violence is completely unacceptable and constitutes a grave violation of the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty and autonomy all of which are protected as core fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Mobs commonly resort to violence against women for multiple reasons, including the fact that they may escape punishment for their crimes if they are a member of a larger group. (Para 17) Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

The Prime Minister / Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over other ministers. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

The state shall make all possible efforts to ensure equitable access to health services. These efforts must be made to progressively realise the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, as acknowledged in international conventions and agreements. However, notwithstanding the right of the state to devise policies for public health and medical education with due regard to peculiar social and financial conditions, policies that cause an unfair disadvantage towards any class of citizens, ought not be formulated. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

The Supreme Court allows purse seine fishing beyond TN territorial waters with conditions. Fisherman Care v. Govt of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 58 : AIR 2023 SC 655

The Supreme Court invokes Article 142 powers to reinstate an English lecturer in college. Vijaya Bhiku Kadam v. Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 723 : AIR 2023 SC 4223

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the State amendments made to the central law Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by the States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra to allow the conduct of animal sports like Jalikattu, Kambala and bull-cart racing in these respective States. These amendments were passed by the States after the Supreme Court in 2014 banned jallikettu and similar activities in the case Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors. These laws cannot be construed as "colourable legislations" and that the State legislature had the legislative power to make these amendments as per Entry 17 to List III of the Seventh Schedule. These amendments do not go contrary to the ratio of the judgment in Nagaraja. These laws cure the defects pointed out by the judgment in Nagaraja. The effect of these laws is to minimise the pain and suffering caused to animals. The amendments, having received the assent of the President, cannot be faulted. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447 : AIR 2023 SC 2612

The Writ Court cannot stop implementation of a statutory provision without holding it unconstitutional. Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Two important aspects of Parliamentary democracy - There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy. First, the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation. Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship. (Para 25) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Whether Minister's statement can be vicariously attributed to government - A statement made by a minister even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protection of the government cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility- Justice Nagarathna dissents to hold that statements in official capacity reflecting views of the govt can be vicariously attributed to the govt. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

While upholding J&K delimitation, the Supreme Court rejects comparisons with Telangana/AP & North Eastern states. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Wholesale domicile reservation unconstitutional' : Supreme Court asks MP Govt to review 75% domicile quota in B.Ed seats. Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 364

You want to keep the country on boil? don't belittle hinduism's greatness' : Supreme Court dismisses Ashwini Upadhyay's plea to rename cities. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Article 3 - Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Article 4 - Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 3, 4, 239A - Parliament is empowered by law to create a body of legislature for the Union territories of Puducherry and J&K.- Even if the law made by Parliament creating a body of legislature for Union territories of Puducherry and J&K has the effect of amending certain parts of the Constitution, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Article 12 – Definition “the State''

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 12 - Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government of India. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Article 14 - Equality before law

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Adoption Regulations, 2022 - Regulations 5(2)(a) and 5(3) of the Adoption Regulations are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 305) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - Even if the State had power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could not have been done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change, and opportunity to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete with others. (Para 33) Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 991

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - If there existed a statutory procedure for granting recognition, an Institution cannot be considered recognized dehors that procedure. (Para 31) Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 991

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 16 - If the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the advertisement. And when this power is exercised, there must be wide publicity of its exercise so that persons who are likely to benefit by exercise of such power may get opportunity to apply and compete. (Para 26) Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 991

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision. Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 995

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation has to establish the following: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the denial of the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14. (Para 44) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Sports Quota - Objective of the sports quota, was to promote and encourage sports, and sportsmanship in educational institutions. Expecting the same degree of academic excellence as that of general candidates will defeat the purpose of the sports quota. The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota, but is rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore, falls afoul of the equality clause. (Para 17, 18) Dev Gupta v. Pec University of Technology, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The High Court's decision to apply the minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 52) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 43) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Nullification of Court direction by legislation impermissible without altering basis of judgment. (Para 114) Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The State action irrespective of being in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14 of the Constitution - The fact that a dispute falls into the contractual realm does not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the requirements of Article 14 - When a power exists to effectuate a purpose it must be exercised within a reasonable time. (Para 36) Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 and 32 - Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005; Rule 5 - Promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the Cadre of District Judge (65% quota) - It is required to be noted that in the present case and as per the merit list produced before the High Court, the candidates, who have secured much more marks are denied promotion and the candidates / Civil Judge (Senior Division), who are having less marks / leas meritorious are promoted. In the present case, the petitioner No. 1 secured 135.50 out of 200 marks and the petitioner No. 2 secured 148.50 marks out of 200 against which a candidate having secured 101 marks have got the promotion, which is affecting the principle of “merit-cum-seniority”. Thus, we are more than satisfied that the impugned Select List dated 10.03.2023 issued by the High Court and the subsequent Notification dated 18.04.2023 issued by the State Government granting promotion to the cadre of District Judge are illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules and Regulations and even to the decision of this Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. (supra). Therefore, we are more than prima facie satisfied that the same as such are not sustainable. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 426 : AIR 2023 SC 2328

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14 and 16 - Whether different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre, on the basis of educational qualifications possessed by them? - the issue is no longer res integra - classification based on educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2023 SC 2164

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Doctrine of Equality - there cannot be equality in the matter of illegality - can't claim benefit of illegal orders passed in the cases of other persons - denies relief to school teacher who secured bachelor's degree through distance education. Sunil Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 271

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation, which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. (Para 13.2) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - classification between Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini Landowners is based on one class of landowners being sons of the soil, while the other class being mere landowners, who are not directly attached to the land- not reasonable classification- The justification given by the GNOIDA Authority, and the Full-bench of the High Court assumes that only Pushtaini landowners permanently reside in the subject land or that the subject land is the primary source of income only for Pushtaini landowners, and this assumption has been backed by no empirical data produced by the authority-t. Many Gair-pushtaini landholders, whose main area of residence or their main source of income is also the subject land, would be subject to great discrimination and injustice, if the same compensation that has been granted to the pushtaini landholders is not extended to them. (Para 38 to 40) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Equality test for permissible amendments – Right to Equality – Even permissible amendments would have to be tested on the touchstone of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution – Reducing cut-off marks only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category when other candidates had already acquired some right – Held, violative of right to equality being based not on objective criteria such as the candidates' suitability but on extraneous reasons namely to accommodate otherwise ineligible candidates – Further held, cut-off marks could not be reduced in the absence of a sound reason that would indicate that the reduced marks also would be sufficient to determine suitability for appointment to advertised posts. (Paras 25, 30) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Supreme Court holds the condition imposed by GAIL on IPCL to be arbitrary- the contractual exercise of providing such a clause runs contrary to every commercial and common sense and is manifestly arbitrary, as IPCL is not being charged under any general terms but for a specific purpose. This purpose cannot exist in the contract in view of the master authority, i.e., the Union of India, providing to the contrary. (Para 21) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Test of classification - To survive the rigors of Article 14, the impugned classification must not only make it through the test of reasonableness, but also clear the Wednesbury Principle, and by extension the Proportionality test. (Para 41) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Test of Proportionality - The classification, as discussed above, if allowed to exist, can lead to several Gair-pushtaini landowners who may also need to be rehabilitated, cannot rehabilitate themselves without compensation for the same. Such a mischief, if allowed to exist, would not only nullify the purpose of the Act, but also violate the third and fourth principle of the proportionality test, and hence is liable to be struck down. (Para 55) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422

Article 15 - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 15 - A restriction on the right to enter into a union based on sexual orientation would violate Article 15 of the Constitution. (Para 252) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15 - The female heirs, subject to the statutory rule operating in that field, are required to be treated equally to the male heirs. Gender equality is recognised by the world community in general in the human rights regime - Exclusion of women from inheritance on the ground of gender was a clear violation of the constitutional prohibition against unfair discrimination. (Para 15) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

Article 16 - Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

Constitution of India; Article 16 - the intention of Article 16 was not to compromise on administrative efficiency. A certain portion (promotion) cannot be reserved for a certain class of citizen and not the others who were also initially appointed on the basis of horizontal reservation, the only exception being SC/ST appointees as envisaged in Article 16(4A). (Para 11, S. Ravindra Bhat, J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 - Right to enter into a union is also grounded in Article 19(1)(e). (Para 226) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 (2) - Additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on right to free speech. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19 & 21 rights can be enforced against private individuals & entities: Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(e) - Whether a non-Tribal has the right to settle down in a Scheduled Area – Held, every citizen has a right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. However, by making a law, reasonable restrictions can be put on the said Fundamental Right as provided in Clause (5) of Article 19. Therefore, we reject the argument that non-Tribals have no right to settle down in a Scheduled Area. (Para 14) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(2) - the non-renewal of permission to operate a media channel is a restriction on the freedom of the press which can only be reasonably restricted on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The reasons for denying a security clearance to MBL, that is, its alleged antiestablishment stance and the alleged link of the shareholders to JEIH, are not legitimate purposes for the restriction of the right of freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In any event, there was no material to demonstrate any link of the shareholders, as was alleged. Principles of Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice ensure that justice is not only done but it is seen to be done as well. A reasoned order is one of the fundamental requirements of fair administration. (Para 56) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(a) - Press Freedom - An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a democratic republic - Its role in a democratic society is crucial for it shines a light on the functioning of the state. The press has a duty to speak truth to power, and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction. The restriction on the freedom of the press compels citizens to think along the same tangent. A homogenised view on issues that range from socioeconomic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy. The critical views of the Channel, Media-One on policies of the government cannot be termed, 'anti-establishment'. The use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment. The action of the MIB by denying a security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views which the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a chilling effect on free speech, and in particular on press freedom. (Para 166 and 167) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a) - The grounds lined up in Article 19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive. Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing claim against each other, additional restrictions not found in Article 19(2) cannot be imposed on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) - Constitution Bench judgment- Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna unanimous. [Para 155, Majority judgment] Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 19 & 21 - Horizontal Application - A fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the state or its instrumentalities - Justice BV Nagarathna dissents to say only habeas corpus remedy can be horizontally applied against private persons. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(3) - Test Identification Parade - Conduct of Test Identification Parade is not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - What is prohibited by Article 20(3) of the Constitution is procuring by compulsion of the positive volitional evidentiary acts of an accused. It is true that an accused may be said to be compelled to attend a test identification parade, but this compulsion does not involve any positive volitional evidentiary act. His mere attendance or the exhibition of his body at a test identification parade even though compelled, does not result in any evidentiary act until he is identified by some other agency. The identification of him by a witness is not his act, even though his body is exhibited for the purpose. His compelled attendance at a test identification parade is comparatively remote to the final evidence and cannot be said by itself to furnish any positive volitional evidentiary act. (Para 26) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 20(1) - the legal position to be taken into consideration is that an Amendment Act cannot post facto criminalize possession. This proposition does not require much deliberation and is well settled that retroactive criminal legislation being violative of Article 20(1), one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution is prohibited. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 and 32 - The Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to marry. Yet it cannot be gainsaid that many of our constitutional values, including the right to life and personal liberty may comprehend the values which a marital relationship entails. They may at the very least entail respect for the choice of a person whether and when to enter upon marriage and the right to choose a marital partner. (Para 185) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 and 32 - Every effort must be made to practice and inculcate constitutional ideas – the ideals of human dignity, liberty, equality, and fraternity – in our everyday lives. These constitutional ideals demand that we respect the autonomy and dignity of each person. We must respect their decisions and choices. It is only when a particular decision or action is contrary to the law or an affront to constitutional values that this Court may step in. In all other instances, citizens are empowered to define the content of their lives and find meaning in their relationships. (Para 104) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - A “fair trial”, is a right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it encompasses all stages of trial including that of “investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and the trial. (Para 28) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - The right to health is an intrinsic element of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Life, to be enjoyed in all its diverse elements, must be based on robust conditions of health. There has been a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the women who underwent unnecessary hysterectomies. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right to die with dignity - Passive Euthanasia - Supreme Court Constitution Bench simplifies the procedure for executing living will/advance directive by modifiying the he judgment reported in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and Another (2018) 5 SCC 1 - the Court allows the application filed by Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine seeking clarification of the judgment. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79 : (2023) 1 SCR 1137

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 – The State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a person under Article 21 even against a threat to the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 : (2023) 4 SCC 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 21 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) - The exclusion of Old Indian settlers, who have permanently settled in Sikkim prior to merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975 from the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) is hereby held to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hereby struck down. (Para 13- 17) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 15, 21 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) Proviso - Proviso to Section 10(26AAA) inasmuch as it excludes from the provision of exemption a Sikkimese woman merely because she marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008 is totally discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India - A woman is not a chattel and has an identity of her own, and the mere factum of being married ought not to take away that identity. (Para 15-17.1) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

Article 21A - Right to education

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21A - Right to Education Act, 2009; Section 23 - B.Ed. degree holders did not pass the basic pedagogical threshold require for teaching primary classes and thus would not be able to provide 'quality' education to primary school children. (Para 31) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21A - Right to Education Act, 2009; Section 23 - The fundamental right of primary education in India not just included 'free' and 'compulsory' education for children below 14 years of age but also included 'quality' education to be imparted in such children. (Para 19) Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Article 22 - Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 – Power to Arrest – Directorate of Enforcement (ED) should furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing at the time of arrest. (Para 35) Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (4) - Preventive detention law cannot authorise the detention of a person beyond 3 (three) months unless an Advisory Board finds sufficient cause for such detention. (Para 59) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22(4)(a) - Period of three months specified in Article 22(4)(a) is relatable to the period of detention prior to the report of the Advisory Board and not to the period of detention subsequent thereto. (Para 44) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (4) - Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002; Section 19 and 21 - The detenue had made his representation before the authorities. The decision was taken by the Advisory Board without considering the representation. To that extent, the decision of the Advisory Board and subsequent decision of the State Government extending the period of detention becomes bad as the statutory procedural requirement have not been complied with. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 22 (5) - illegible documents given to the detenue in preventive detention can cause prejudice in submitting a representation. This violates the principles under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, where the detaining authority must explain the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue. (Para 39) Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293 : (2023) 2 SCR 793

Article 25 - Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - Even assuming that the excommunication of members of the Dawoodi Bohra community is always made on religious grounds, the effect and consequences thereof, on the person excommunicated needs to be considered in the context of justiciable Constitutional rights. The excommunication will have many civic consequences which will, prima facie, affect his fundamental right to live with dignity and the right to lead a meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21. Therefore, the question is is whether the said right of the community to excommunicate its members can be balanced with the other fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution and in particular, Article 21. (Para 31) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - the protection under Article 26(b) granted by the decision in the case of Sardar Syedna1 to the power to excommunicate a member of the Dawoodi Bohra community, needs reconsideration as the said right is subject to morality which is understood as Constitutional morality-This issue will require examination by a larger Bench. (Para 28) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 25, 26 - Right to Excommunicate - prima facie, we find that the exercise of balancing the rights under Article 26(b) with other rights under Part III and in particular Article 21 was not undertaken by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sardar Syedna- This question is substantially in issue before the Bench of nine Judges in Sabrimala Temple Review . Moreover, the question whether the protection can be given by Article 26(b) to the practice of excommunication is to be tested on the touchstone of the concept of Constitutional morality as the said right is subject to morality. (Para 34) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 97 : AIR 2023 SC 974 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 :(2023) 1 SCR 293

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32, 226, 227 - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - In exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate - Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review - Even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. (Para 6-7) Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 : AIR 2023 SC 554 : (2023) 1 SCR 961

Article 30 - Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30 - Minority educational institution cannot claim exemption from admission & fee regulatory committee. Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30 - If an employee is continued in service by the management of any registered minority Secondary School receiving Grant-in-Aid from the State-Government, then such school would not be entitled to receive any grant in respect of the expenditure incurred for continuing such employee beyond the stipulated superannuation age. State of Gujarat v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 127 : AIR 2023 SC 1155 : (2023) 2 SCR 487

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30(1) - It is not open to the appellant society to claim complete immunity in undertaking this exercise and seek exemption from any interference by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee. (Para 16) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 30(1) - Setting up a reasonable fee structure is also a component of the right to establish and administer an institution, within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that there can be no profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or indirectly or in any form - it is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving that purpose. (Para 12) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

Article 32 - Remedies for enforcement of rights

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - there is an urgent need for a law which inter alia prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gives full effect to the other civil and social rights of LGBTQ persons. In the absence of such a law, members of the LGBTQ community will be unable to exercise their rights and freedoms to the fullest extent and will have to approach the courts for their enforcement on a case-by-case basis. (Para 263) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - The power of the Supreme Court to do justice is not limited either by the manner in which Article 32 has been constructed or by any part of the Constitution. It is amply clear from both the plain meaning of Article 32 as well as the Constituent Assembly Debates that the Supreme Court has the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of the rights incorporated in Part III of the Constitution. (Para 65) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 and 226 - The doctrine of separation of powers cannot stand in the way of the Courts issuing directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The directions, orders, or writs issued for this purpose cannot encroach upon the domain of the legislature. The Courts cannot make law, it can only interpret it and give effect to it. (Para 67) Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - A Constitutional Court would not issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature or to a rule making body to enact a law on a particular subject and in a particular manner. Binu Tamta v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 969

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 and 324 - PIL for an independent audit of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs') source codes - No evidence presented by petitioner to show Election Commission's breach of its constitutional duties. The Court refrains from issuing directives on policy matters like EVM source code audits that concern election integrity, under the Election Commission's purview. No indication that the Commission isn't fulfilling its role. Petition dismissed. (Para 5) Sunit Ahya v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 – Petition to restrict the assassination of dignity of individual, community, religious saint, religious & political organisation by these broadcasting electronic channels in the name of freedom of 'Press' - to control these uncontrolled and unregulated broadcasting electronic channels - to restrict media trail, parallel trial, judgmental views and interfering in the administration of justice - to constitute an independent authority for the purpose of regulating and facilitating development of broadcasting services in India - to stop the misuse of airwaves by these broadcasting electronic channels in the name of media, press and journalism - Held, that the prayers are too wide - we have to also keep in mind the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression - a mechanism has been created to address the grievances headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court consists of members of the Civil Society as well. Moreover, this Court is dealing with hate speeches/news items in separate petitions. Therefore, declined to entertain the petition. If the petitioner so desires, he can always make a representation to the appropriate authorities pointing out alleged illegalities committed by news channels. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging appointment of Election Commissioner – Held, the appointment of the Election Commissioner, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has been examined the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155. The Constitution Bench did not pass any effective order disturbing the appointment, though the relevant files and all other factors have been taken into consideration. PIL dismissed. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - The petitioner was the Additional Advocate General of State of Uttar Pradesh seeking a writ of mandamus against the State Government to clear the bills of his outstanding professional fees. According to the State, all the outstanding bills have been disbursed to the petitioner. Held, a serious doubt whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India should be entertained at the instance of an advocate representing the State for recovery of his fees and that also when there is a serious dispute about the entitlement of the petitioner to receive fees based on certain bills. Therefore, unable to pass any further orders on this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, the other available remedies of the petitioner are expressly kept open which he can avail in accordance with law. Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Constitution of India, 1950; Section 32 - Revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification in respect of feature film 'Adipurush' for hurting religious sentiments and for distorting the sacred text – Held, it is inappropriate to interfere with film certifications based on the sensitivities of each individual. The Court should not become some kind of an appellate authority for the censor board. Mamta Rani v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 559

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - The parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (Para 41) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Plea to restore concession in railway tickets for senior citizens – Cannot entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as the matter involves the policy decision of the Railways whether to restore the railway concession to senior citizens as was done before on the ground of being a welfare State - the matter involving a fiscal issue, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue writ of this nature, the petitioner seeks and it is for the Government to take a call on the policy decision keeping in mind the needs of the senior citizens and the fiscal repercussions - The writ petition is dismissed. M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - A petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be maintained in order to challenge a binding judgment of the Supreme Court. Vijayalakshmi Jha v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - It is trite law that this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot issue a mandamus to Parliament to legislate nor does it legislate. The constitutional power to legislate is entrusted to Parliament or, as the case may, the State Legislatures under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution - Supreme Court refuses to entertain pleas to increase age of marriage for women as 21 years. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 143

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Plea of Supreme Court Bar Association for conversion of plot allotted to the Court as lawyers' chambers cannot be entertained on the judicial side - However, matter left open to be considered on the administrative side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - SC refuses to entertain petition seeking a framework which would allow citizens to petition directly to the Parliament - The reliefs which have been sought fall exclusively within the domain of Parliament. Such directions cannot be issued by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Karan Garg v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - while exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision - it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person. [Para 10] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - The issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence - This question should be raised by the petitioner before the Special Court, since an answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out. (Para 46) Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86 : AIR 2023 SC 875 : (2023) 4 SCC 357

Article 51A – Fundamental Duties

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 51A - casts an obligation on every citizen, and more so on every judge, to promote harmony, spirit of common brotherhood among all transcending religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities. [Para 12] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

Article 77 - Conduct of business of the Government of India

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - A notification which is not in compliance with clause (1) of Article 77 is not invalid, unconstitutional or non-est for that reason alone. Rather, the irrebuttable presumption that the notification was issued by the President of India (acting for the Union Government) is no longer available to the Union Government. The notification continues to be valid and it is open to the Union Government to prove that the order was indeed issued by the appropriate authority. (Para 101) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 77 - the notification dated 2 August 2019 was not issued in the name of the President. However, this does not render the notification invalid. The effect of not complying with Article 77 is that the Union Government cannot claim the benefit of the irrebuttable presumption that the notification dated 2 August 2019 was issued by the President. Hence, the appellants' argument that the notification dated 2 August 2019 is invalid and unconstitutional is specious. (Para 102) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Article 105 - Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof.

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 105(2) and 194(2) - Powers, privileges and immunities of the members of the Houses of Parliament and the State Legislatures. Do MPs/MLAs have immunity from criminal proceedings when they take bribes for votes? The judgement in P.V. Narasmiha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626 had held that legislators enjoyed immunity from prosecution in cases of bribery in relation to parliamentary vote and speech. However, the immunity would only be extended if the legislators carried out the act that they had taken the bribe for. In other words, if a legislator took a bribe to vote for a particular candidate but later decided to not go ahead with the same and voted for someone else, the immunity would not be extended to them. Held, the correctness of the majority view in P.V. Narasmiha Rao should be reconsidered by a larger Bench of seven judges. (Para 24) Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 823

Article 131 - Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 131 - Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998; Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010; Rule 5 – Constitutional Validity of – Decision of Larger Bench pending - It is the contention of the Union of India and several of the impleaded States that this suit is not maintainable - No doubt, if this Court is required to decide the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions of the Act of 1998, it may be necessary to await the decision of the Larger Bench, but not otherwise. Therefore, at this stage, it would be premature to nonsuit the State of Meghalaya on the ground that this suit is not maintainable or to keep it on hold for all purposes, pending the decision of the Larger Bench. As the State of Meghalaya seeks to assert its right to do business in lotteries under Article 298(b) and its executive power to do so would be subject to parliamentary legislation, viz., the Act of 1998, the grievances raised by it in that context would constitute disputes which fall squarely within the four corners of Article 131 of the Constitution. The position that emerges is that the suit of the present nature and in its present form cannot be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable. (Para 13 - 15) State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Article 136 - Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

Article 136 - SLP against NCDRC's order passed in exercise of its appellate/revisional jurisdiction cannot be entertained. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567

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

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - No Special Leave Petition can be filed against the administrative order - Article 136 contemplates only special leave petition to the Court from adjudication of courts and tribunals and such adjudication must doubtless be judicial. Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 10A - Survey of Gyanvapi Mosque - Commission for Scientific Investigation - Application seeking a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake a scientific survey for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the construction and the age of the structure. The District Judge allowed the applications and directed the ASI to “undertake the scientific investigation / survey / excavation on the property. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Judge directing an archeological survey of the area in which the Gyanvapi Mosque is situated. However, during the course of the proceedings before the High Court, ASI has clarified on affidavit that it was neither carrying out any excavation nor would the survey involve any destruction of the property. Held that the Order of the Trial Judge under Order XXVI Rule 10A cannot prima facie be construed to be without jurisdiction. Having regard to the nature and ambit of a court appointed Commissioner, we are unable to differ with the view of the High Court, particularly while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The survey shall not involve any excavation at the site or any destruction of the structure. The entire process shall be concluded by any noninvasive methodology that may be adopted by the ASI. (Para 15 -17) Committee of Management Anjuman Intezemia Masajid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - Even after leave is granted and appeal is admitted, the appellants must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist to reverse the findings, or grave injustice will be done if the decision under challenge is not interfered with. (Para 8) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope and grant of special leave - the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation. But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should not entertain a petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed. The limitation, whatever they be, are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. The power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of overriding constitutional powers. (Para 24) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Concurrent finding of fact does not call for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any valid ground for interference. (Para 3) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - It is true that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, are usually, not to be interfered with. However, it is only in the presence of exceptional circumstances, this Court exercises its wide powers where there is travesty of justice and when absurd and erroneous conclusions are drawn by the Courts below. We are of the opinion that this is one such case fit for exercising the powers entrusted to us as a duty under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 17) Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227 : (2023) 2 SCR 746

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Power of the Supreme Court - In the absence of very special circumstances or in the presence of gross errors of law committed by the High Court, the Supreme Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. The limitations under Article 136 are self-imposed limitations where in the ordinary course appreciation of evidence is not to be done in the absence of manifest error or the judgment, subject matter of the special leave, being ex facie perverse. (Para 17.10) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in respect of cases where concurrent findings are recorded by the Lower Courts – If doubt lingers with respect to the probability or conclusiveness of any circumstance relied on by the prosecution, forming a link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of convict, despite the existence of concurrent findings, the evidence has to be scrutinized by the Supreme Court so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and it points to the guilt of the convict and it did not brook any hypothesis other than the guilt of the convict. (Para 13) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : (2023) 2 SCR 661

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Though the Scope of Article 136 of Constitution of India is very wide, the power conferred thereunder being a very special and extraordinary power, it has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases. (Para 15) Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : AIR 2023 SC 1308

Article 142 - Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 – Decree of divorce - Irretrievable break down of marriage - Supreme Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, and exercise its discretion under Article 142 for dissolving the marriage between the parties by balancing out the equities between the conflicting claims of the parties, however, such discretion should be exercised with great care and caution. This discretionary power could be exercised for dissolving the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable break down to do “complete justice,” though one of the spouses opposes the prayer for dissolution of marriage. (Para 17) Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 873

Constitution of India 1950 - Article 142 cannot be invoked to override statutory provisions. The inherent powers though wide in its amplitude, cannot be exercised to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court. (Para 17) Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 846

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides - Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage - When there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Insolvency of Reliance Home Finance Ltd (RHFL) - the Supreme Court allowed the Resolution Plan (RP) proposed by Authum Investments and Infrastructure Ltd. (AIIL) to cover the debenture holders of RHFL - the plan will not cover dissenting debenture holders - the dissenting debenture holders should be provided an option to accept the terms of the resolution plan who proposed such acquisition or they can pursue other legal remedies to recover their dues. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173 : AIR 2023 SC 1459

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot issue directions in violation of the statutory provisions; and sympathy or sentiment, by itself, cannot be a ground for passing an order beyond and contrary to the legal rights. (Para 23) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : (2023) 2 SCR 1049

Article 162 - Extent of executive power of State

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 162, 44 and Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule - Writ Petition Challenging constitution of the Committee on the Uniform Civil Code set up by the State of Uttarakhand - Dismissed - Article 162 of the Constitution indicates that the executive power of a State extends to matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws -In view of the provisions of Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, the constitution of a Committee per se cannot be challenged as ultra vires. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 22

Article 167 - Duties of Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of information to Governor, etc.

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 167 - The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. Once such information is sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it - Not furnishing the information which was sought by the Governor would be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b). (Para 24) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Article 170 - Composition of the Legislative Assemblies.

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 170 - Article 170 deals with only the State Legislature. It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories. The reason is that the Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A and not by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI. (Para 23) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Article 174 - Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 174 - There can be no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted to the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion. (Para 22) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Article 178 - The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Constitution of India; 1950; Article 178 - It was legally permissible for the Speaker to reconvene the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it was adjourned sine die without prorogation. Further, the Speaker was empowered as the sole custodian of the proceedings of the House to adjourn and reconvene the House. (Para 41) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Article 200 - Assent to Bills

Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - Casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House is not a constitutional option open to the Governor. (Para 44) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - The Governor, as a guiding statesman, may recommend reconsideration of the entirety of the Bill or any part thereof and even indicate the desirability of introducing amendments. However, the ultimate decision on whether or not to accept the advice of the Governor as contained in the message belongs to the legislature alone. (Para 23) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - The Governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever. (Para 24) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - When the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the course of action which is to be followed is that which is indicated in the first proviso. (Para 25) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - the Governor of Punjab was not empowered to withhold action on the Bills passed by the State Legislature and must act “as soon as possible”. (Para 28) State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Punjab Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Constitution of India; 1950; Article 200 - Governors must return bills as soon as possible - The first proviso to Article 200 states that the Governor may “as soon as possible after the presentation” of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the State Legislature. The expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities. State of Telangana v. Governor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Article 217 - Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217 - Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court - Method of recommendation envisages that Collegium of the High Court consisting Chief Justice and two senior most judges recommends names; Government provides inputs; IB report is obtained; Supreme Court Collegium of three senior most judges takes a call. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - observing that the consultative process is to limit the judicial review, restricting it to the specified area, that is, eligibility, and not suitability - judicial review lies when there is lack of eligibility or 'lack of effective consultation'. Judicial review does not lie on 'content' of consultation. [Para 4] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - prescribes the constitutional requirement of consultation - prescribes the procedure to be followed, which procedure is designed to test the fitness of a person so to be appointed; her character, her integrity, her competence, her knowledge and the like. [Para 3] Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 93 : AIR 2023 SC 886 : (2023) 5 SCC 661 : (2023) 1 SCR 463

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2) - the Supreme Court refused to accept the interpretation that a person who may have been enrolled with a State Bar Council and subsequently shifted practice in the Supreme Court is ineligible to be appointed as High Court judges - because at the end of the day every lawyer is enrolled with the Bar Council of a particular State. Ashok Pandey v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 217(2)(a) - Supreme Court rejects the petition filed by nine judicial officers from Andhra Pradesh for consideration for elevation as HC judges- Court holds that their service as ad-hoc judges cannot be reckoned for the purposes of Article 217(2)(a). (Para 8) C. Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130 : AIR 2023 SC 1214

Article 222 - Transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 222 - Supreme Court critices the Centre for delay in notifying transfer of High Court judges as per collegium recommendations- Delay in the same not only affects the administration of justice but creates an impression as if there are third party sources interfering on behalf of these Judges with the Government. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 222 - Transferred judges do not carry label of 'bar judge' or 'service judge' - If a Judge is transferred from a Court, it is not as if a replacement can be provided from the Bar or the Service Judges of that Court as the total strength of the Court is specified. When the Judge is transferred to another Court, he is a transferred Judge neither categorized from the Bar nor from the Service. In the Court where he is transferred, he occupies a physical position in the strength of that Court and unless correspondingly Judges are transferred from that Court, there will be lesser person appointed in that Court from the Bar/Services as the total strength of the Court to which transfer is made cannot be exceeded. The transferred Judge does not carry the label of a Bar or a Service Judge and it is up to the Chief Justice where to he is transferred to reduce the inflow in the Court of transfer, i.e., from the Bar or Service. Similarly, if from the Court where to Judges are transferred, in turn Judges from either category are transferred to other Courts they in turn will carry the label of a transferred Judge and not from the Bar or the Service. This aspect has been clarified as there 5 appears to be some doubts expressed about how the system of transfer will operate. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

Article 226 - The High Court ought to relegate parties to alternate remedies when there are serious factual disputes. State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Quo warranto is a remedy or procedure whereby the State inquires into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to an office or franchise, and to oust him from its enjoyment if the claim be not well founded, or to have the same declared forfeited and recover it, if, having once been rightfully possessed and enjoyed; it has become forfeited for mis-user or non-user. (Para 30) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 – Writ of Quo warranto - The question of fulfilling legal requirements and qualifications necessary to hold a public office would be considered in the proceedings independent of the fact as to who made the appointment and the manner in which the appointment was made. (Para 31) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 – Writ of Quo warranto - Any person may challenge the validity of an appointment of a public office, whether any fundamental or other legal right of his has been infringed or not. But the court must be satisfied that the person so applying is bona fide and there is a necessity in public interest to declare judicially that there is a usurpation of public office. If the application is not bona fide and the applicant is a mere pawn or a man of straw in the hands of others, he cannot claim the remedy. Though the applicant may not be an aspirant for the office nor has any interest in appointment, he can apply as a private relator, or an ordinary citizen. (Para 32) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 – Writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law. (Para 39) Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/ affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion. (Para 28) State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - No doubt, in a writ proceeding between the State and a landholder, the Court can, on the basis of materials/evidence(s) placed on record, determine whether possession has been taken or not and while doing so, it may draw adverse inference against the State where the statutory mode of taking possession has not been followed. However, where possession is stated to have been taken long ago and there is undue delay on the part of landholder in approaching the writ court, infraction of the prescribed procedure for taking possession would not be a determining factor, inasmuch as, it could be taken that the person for whose benefit the procedure existed had waived his right thereunder. In such an event, the factum of actual possession would have to be determined on the basis of materials/evidence(s) available on record and not merely by finding fault in the procedure adopted for taking possession from the land holder. And if the writ court finds it difficult to determine such question, either for insufficient/ inconclusive materials/evidence(s) on record or because oral evidence would also be required to form a definite opinion, it may relegate the writ petitioner to a suit, if the suit is otherwise maintainable. (Para 30) State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The factum of possession is essentially a question of fact. Although there is no hard and fast rule that a question of fact cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction but, in the event of a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact, a writ court ordinarily refrains from deciding it. More so, when writ petitioner has an alternative remedy where such disputed questions of fact can be decided authoritatively. (Para 23) State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The whole object of preferring a Writ Petition is to engage with the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional power. Such a power is vested with the constitutional courts and discretion has to be exercised judiciously and having regard to the facts of the case and by taking into consideration the relevant facts while leaving out irrelevant considerations and not vice versa. (Para 19) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ Petition in tender matters - The owner or the employer of a project, who authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents - The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents by the employer unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation. (Para 25) Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse - The introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 26-30) Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Appeal against order of National Commission - the petitioner to first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of course, after the High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of the parties to thereafter come before the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 38) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - the High Court, even while deciding a bail application, has the power to issue other directions in the interest of justice. Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The observations are not to be construed to imply that the High Courts should delve into the efficacy of investigation at the stage of bail, and the present judgment is not to be misread to haul up the investigative agencies/officers in all cases. (Para 15) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 and 227 - The High Court is a Constitutional Court, possessing a wide repertoire of powers. The High Court has original, appellate and suo motu powers. The powers are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice. (Para 12) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Supreme Court deprecates High Court entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters, especially against private banks - When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper - Mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition “not maintainable" - Where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. (Para 4-8) Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 : AIR 2023 SC 781

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - It was premature for the High Court to opine anything on whether there was any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be considered in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under section 130 of the CGST Act was issued. Therefore, High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice and quashing and setting aside the same. State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction can be exercised when the State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practices any discrimination. (Para 19) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 88 : AIR 2023 SC 833 : (2023) 3 SCC 629 : (2023) 2 SCR 326

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of money under the bills/invoices should not have been entertained by the High Court, more particularly, when in fact the original writ petitioner(s) availed the remedy before Civil Court and filed Civil Suit, which came to be dismissed in default. Director of Agriculture v. M.V. Ramachandran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging orders of Armed Forces Tribunal are maintainable - To deny the High Court to correct any error which the Armed Forces Tribunal may fall into, even in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, would be against the constitutional scheme. Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Concept of forum conveniens - Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a high court, the same by itself could not have been a determinative factor compelling the High Court to keep the writ petitions alive against the appellant to decide the matter qua the impugned notification, on merit. (Para 18) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Guiding tests to determine whether part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court- In the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such 'cause of action' is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed- Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action - In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant- It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction- Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted- Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. (Para 15) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a challenge to an order passed by a Tribunal situated outside its jurisdiction - Supreme Court refers to larger bench. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : (2023) 5 SCC 706 : (2023) 2 SCR 59

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226(2) - Tax has been levied by the Government of Goa in respect of a business that the petitioning company is carrying on within the territory of Goa - Such tax is payable by the petitioning company not in respect of carrying on of any business in the territory of Sikkim- Merely because the petitioning company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, the same by itself does not form an integral part of the cause of action authorizing the petitioning company to move the High Court. (Para 16) State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 184 : AIR 2023 SC 1536 : (2023) 2 SCR 247

Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226, 227 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - In view of alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal before the DRAT, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226/227 allowing the borrower to circumvent the provision of appeal before the DRAT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 6) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : AIR 2023 SC 306 : (2023) 1 SCR 579

Article 239A - Creation of local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union territories

Article 239AA - Special provisions with respect to Delhi

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - Can parliamentary law under Article 239AA(7) alter constitutional powers of Delhi govt? issue referred to the Supreme Court constitution bench. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 551

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - If a democratically elected government is not given the power to control the officers, the principle of triple chain of accountability will be redundant. If the officers stop reporting to the Ministers or do not abide by their directions, the principle of collective responsibility is affected. If "services" are excluded from legislative and executive domain, the Ministers would be excluded from controlling the civil servants who are to implement the executive decisions. if the officers feel they are insulated from the control of the government, it will dilute accountability and affect governance. Thus, in a democratic form of govt, real power of administration must rest on the elected arm of the government. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - Legislative structure of Article 239AA excludes Entries 1, 2 and 18 of List II to Schedule VII (public order, police and land) from the power of the Delhi legislative assembly. The Union of India has executive power only over these three entries.Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - the legislative assembly of Delhi embodies the principle of representative democracy, the Delhi assembly is given powers to legislate to represent the will of the people. Thus, Article 239AA of the Constitution must be interpreted in a manner to further the interest of representative democracy. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 239AA - the National Capital Territory of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services in the National Capital, excluding matters relating to public order, police and land. The Lieutenant Governor shall be bound by the decision of Delhi government over services, apart from public order, police and land. If services are excluded from its legislative and executive domain, the Ministers and the Executive who are charged with formulating policies in the territory of NCTD would be excluded from controlling the civil service officers who implement such executive decisions. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 423 : AIR 2023 SC 2881

Article 243R - Composition of Municipalities

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 243R - The Constitution has imposed a restriction in terms of which nominated members who are brought in on account of their special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration do not have the right to vote- The same restriction finds statutory recognition in Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The above provisions indicate that persons who are nominated under the sub-clause shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Corporation. The Constitution and the Act place value on their experience but the right to vote is not granted to them at meetings of the Corporation. (Para 11) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : (2023) 5 SCC 414

Article 254 - Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - The Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 cannot be invalidated on the ground that is provisions are at variance from the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Since the Tamil Nadu Act has received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, there is no basis in challenging the Act on the ground that is repugnant to the RFCTLARR Act. Though the State Act did not provide fixed timelines for acquiring land as compared to the new Land Acquisition Act (a central Legislature), the same would not vitiate the State Act. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State Act stood protected after receiving the Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The whole purpose of Article 254(2) was to protect a State enactment when it ran contrary to central legislation. Individual cases involving delay in the acquisition of land under the Highways Act would have to be dealt on merits and that itself would not invalidate the Act. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States - the doctrine of repugnancy as such would not apply within the meaning of Article 254 of the Constitution. Although Entry 25 of List III gives powers to both the central and state legislatures to pass laws on the subject of education, it is significant to note that any such law made by the state legislature is subject to, inter alia, Entry 66 of List I. Hence, where there is a direct conflict between a state law and a union law over a matter of the coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education, such as in medical education concerning modern medicine, the state law cannot have any validity as the state legislature does not possess legislative competence. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

Article 299 - Contracts

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 299 - No immunity from statute merely because a contract is entered in the President's name. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 299 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 11(6) and 12(5) r/w Schedule VII - Application for appointment of arbitrator - A contract entered into in the name of the President of India, does not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract. Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 459 : AIR 2023 SC 2777

Article 300A - Suits and proceedings

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Assuming holding notes is a right under the Constitution, the rights vested in the notes was not taken away - only restrictions were with respect to exchange of old notes with the new notes. [Para 277 - 278] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - To continue with the temporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be 9 infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Even to continue with the temporary acquisition for a longer period can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of the landowners to deal with and/or use the land. (Para 7) Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 - Rehabilitation scheme under Section 18 of the SICA, 1985 shall bind all the creditors including the unsecured creditors - Dues cannot be recovered post revival of sick company - Compelling unsecured creditors to accept the scaled down value of their dues would not be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the rehabilitation scheme is prepared under Section 18 of SICA, which has a binding effect on all the creditors. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Article 309 - Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 309 - Appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State, is one of a status. It is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued under Article 309 or its proviso. (Para 21) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042

Article 311 - Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State

Constitution of India, 1905; Article 311 (2) (c) Second Proviso - Inquiry proceedings of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union Government or the State Government can be done away with if the President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry. Once it is obvious that circumstances based on materials capable of arriving at a satisfaction that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry “in the interest of the security of the State” are available, the decision in holding that it is inexpedient “in the interest of the security of the State” to hold an inquiry warrants no further scrutiny. The Court cannot, in such circumstances, judge on the expedience or inexpediency to dispense with the inquiry as it was arrived at based on the subjective satisfaction of the President based on materials. (Para 24) Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 432 : AIR 2023 SC 2391

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311 - Departmental enquiry not necessary to terminate the services of a judicial officer on the ground of suppression of criminal case at the time of making application- It is not a case of termination of services for misconduct - It was the case of cancellation of the appointment on not disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7) Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Article 323A – Administrative tribunals

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 323A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs. (Para 32) Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Article 324 - Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 324 (2) - Appointment to the posts of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be done by the President of India on the basis of the advice tendered by a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and, in case, there is no such Leader, the Leader of the largest Party in the Opposition in the Lok Sabha having the largest numerical strength, and the Chief Justice of India. This norm will continue to hold good till a law is made by the Parliament - As regards the relief relating to putting in place a permanent Secretariat for the Election Commission of India and charging its expenditure to the Consolidated Fund of India is concerned, the Court makes a fervent appeal that the Union of India/Parliament may consider bringing in the necessary changes so that the Election Commission of India becomes truly independent. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : (2023) 6 SCC 161

Article 330 - Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 330 and 332 - Delimitation Act, 2002 - As regards providing reservation for all the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative constituencies in a Scheduled Area, the appellant cannot contend that all the constituencies in a Scheduled area should be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Reservation is required to be made in terms of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. These provisions do not provide that all the constituencies in the Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. Moreover, the 2002 Act is applicable to the Scheduled Area. Therefore, even the said prayer to issue a writ of mandamus, as regards the reservation for the Scheduled Tribes, deserves to be rejected. (Para 17) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

Article 370 - Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 a temporary Provision: Supreme Court upholds abrogation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Won't touch special provisions for North Eastern States or other parts, Centre Tells Supreme Court. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Constitution amendments through circuitous manner not permissible; Article 368 procedure must be followed. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Why Supreme Court upheld repeal of J&K special status despite invalidating changes to Article 367 ? Explained. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1050

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Union Government has absolutely no intent to affect any of the special provisions in Part XXI applicable to the North East or to any other part of India. The reference to the Constitution Bench is confined to the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 4, 5) In Re Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 696

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 370 - Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation - There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K undertaken by the Delimitation Commission - there is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020 - There is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed - findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. We are aware that the issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending - Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving our imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 31 - 46) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - All the Central and the State laws which are applicable to the entire State will continue to apply to the Scheduled Area unless, in exercise of powers under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, there is a specific notification issued by the Hon'ble Governor making a particular enactment inapplicable, either fully or partially. (Para 13 (i)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - The power of the Hon'ble Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule is restricted to directing that a particular law will not apply to the Scheduled Area or it will apply with such modifications as may be specified in the notification issued under subclause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule or while making Regulations in terms of sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule. (Para 13 (ii)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

Constitution of India, 1950; Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - The power of the Hon'ble Governor under Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule does not supersede the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Fundamental Rights conferred by sub-clause (e) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India on the citizens can also be exercised in relation to the Scheduled Area. (Para 13 (ii) & (iii)) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 35 of List III of Seventh Schedule - The power on the Parliament as also the State Legislatures to make laws relating to mechanically propelled vehicles of all kinds and also to lay down the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied -The central enactment i.e. the law made by the Parliament has not laid down any principles for levy of taxes. The State Legislatures has the power to levy taxes not only under Entries 56 and 57 of List II but also to lay down the principles under Entry 35 of List III. (Para 46) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 27 : AIR 2023 SC 390

Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - deals with currency, coinage and legal tender; foreign exchange which is a field of legislation - Central Government has the power to initiate the process of demonetisation on the strength of Entry 36 - apart from financial health of the country Central Government is also concerned about the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country - if it thinks fit to initiate a proposal for demonetisation to eradicate black money, fake currency, terror funding etc, it should be able to do so. [Para 15.7, 15.8 and 15.9] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - power of Central Government to demonetise banknotes - Central Government has the power to demonetise 'all' series of bank notes of 'all' denominations, even without the recommendation of Central Board; but not in exercise of Section 26(2) - such an extensive power is to be exercised only through a legislative process [legislation/Ordinance (if urgent)] and not by way of an executive act - the Parliament should be involved in the process of implementation of such a scheme of demonetisation. [Para 15.13, 15.4 and 15.22] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 49 of List II – Fees on erection of mobile tower – Held, the State Government has the authority to impose permit fees on the erection of mobile towers. The tax or fee applicable is on the use of the land and building where the mobile tower is installed, not on the tower itself. (Para 13) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd; v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 66 of List I - It is essential that uniform standards are laid down by the Parliament which are adhered to by institutions and medical colleges across the country. To this end, Entry 66 has been formulated with the objective of maintaining uniform standards in research, higher education, and technical education. Hence, state legislatures lack legislative competence in the areas of prescription of minimum standards for medical education, authority to recognise or derecognise an institution, etc. The particular qualifications for medical practitioners practising in disparate areas and in disparate fields, providing different levels of primary, secondary, or tertiary medical services, are within the mandate of expert and statutory authorities entrusted with the said mandate by the Parliament. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule

Constitution of India, 1950; Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule - Law applicable to Scheduled Areas - Unless a notification has been issued by the Governor indicating that (I) a parliamentary or state law shall have no application to the Scheduled Area; or (ii) the parliamentary or state legislation would apply subject to exceptions or modifications, there would be no hindrance in the application of the law to the State. (Para 13) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 851

Consumer Law

A pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism. (Para 23) Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442 : AIR 2023 SC 2527

Amend Consumer Protection Rules on appointment process of commission members within 3 months : Supreme Court to Centre, States. In Re: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Builder has obligation to seek completion certificate-It is no part of the flat owner's duty to apply for a completion certificate. (Para 18, 19) Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92 : AIR 2023 SC 840 : (2023) 3 SCC 195

Commercial enterprises can raise consumer disputes in relation to goods or services unconnected to profit generation. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Commissions can't decide complaints involving highly disputed facts, criminal or tortious acts. Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 251 : AIR 2023 SC 1762

Consumer disputes are non-arbitrable, consumers can't be compelled into arbitration. M. Hemalatha Devi v. B. Udayasri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Definition of 'Consumer' includes 'Consumers'; Joint complaint by multiple consumers need not be filed in representative capacity. Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442 : AIR 2023 SC 2527

Flat owners do not forfeit the right to claim amenities promised by the developer by taking possession of the apartments- Supreme Court disapproves of NCDRC order dismissing homebuyers' claim on the ground that knowingly purchased the apartments. Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92 : AIR 2023 SC 840 : (2023) 3 SCC 195

Flat owners don't forfeit the right to claim amenities promised by builder by taking possession of apartments. Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92 : AIR 2023 SC 840 : (2023) 3 SCC 195

Flat-owners' rights - If complaints were to be spurned on the specious ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing, the object and purpose of the enactment would be defeated-in most cases, the jurisdiction of NCDRC is invoked post-purchase-Any deficiency detected post-purchase opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer for a. (Para 11) Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92 : AIR 2023 SC 840 : (2023) 3 SCC 195

If commercial use is by purchasers themselves for earning livelihood by self-employment, they'll be 'consumers'. Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754 : AIR 2023 SC 4229

Manufacturing Defect - the Supreme Court directs Ford India Ltd. to pay Rs. 42 lakhs as compensation to a consumer who purchased a car which had manufacturing defects. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. v. Medical Eleborate Concept Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 515

'NCDRC acted as if they were experts' : Supreme Court sets aside order upholding insurance claim repudiation. S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619

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

Party not entitled to seek relief that has not been prayed for. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975

Railways not liable for theft of passenger's belongings - the theft of personal belongings of a Passenger is not “deficiency of service” by Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible. The Supreme court set aside orders passed by Consumer forum whereby Railways was directed to reimburse the stolen amount of cash to the Passenger. Station Superintendent v. Surender Bhola, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 487

Rs. 2 Crore compensation for bad haircut excessive: Supreme Court asks NCDRC to decide model's claim afresh. ITC Ltd. v. Aashna Roy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 87 : AIR 2023 SC 827 : (2023) 5 SCC 655

SLP against NCDRC's order passed in exercise of its appellate/revisional jurisdiction cannot be entertained. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567 : AIR 2023 SC 3699

Supreme Court Paves way for lawyers with 10 yrs experience to be considered for consumer commission appointments; upholds striking down of centre's rules. Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161 : AIR 2023 SC 1371

Supreme Court refuses to hold pharma company liable for not mentioning adverse reaction of vaccination, says doctor should've advised patient. Prakash Bang v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 764 : AIR 2023 SC 4217

Supreme Court terms Rs 2 crores compensation awarded by the NCDRC for a bad hair-cut suffered by a model at a 5-star hotel saloon as excessive and disproportionate-quantification of compensation has to be based upon material evidence and not on the mere asking. (Para 13, 15) ITC Ltd. v. Aashna Roy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 87 : AIR 2023 SC 827 : (2023) 5 SCC 655

Supreme Court upholds the Bombay High Court judgment which struck down provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules which excluded persons with 10 years professional experience from appointment to State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums - for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission, the appointment shall be made on the basis of performance in written test consisting of two papers. Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161 : AIR 2023 SC 1371

Supreme Court's comments on flat-owners' plight - Now-a-days, flat owners seldom purchase flats with liquid cash. Flats are purchased on the basis of finances being advanced by banks and other financial institutions. Once a flat is booked and the prospective flat owner enters into an agreement for loan, instalments fall due to be paid to clear the debt irrespective of whether the flat is ready for being delivered possession. The usual delays that are associated with construction activities result in undue anxiety, stress, and harassment for which many a prospective flat owner, it is common knowledge, even without the project/flat being wholly complete is left with no other option but to take possession. Debashis Sinha v. RNR Enterprise, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92 : AIR 2023 SC 840 : (2023) 3 SCC 195

Tests to determine if goods or services were purchased or availed for commercial purposes - Two fold tests- (i) whether the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose; or (ii) whether the services are availed for any commercial purpose - If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose, then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of the Act, 1986. For example, if a manufacturer who is producing product A, for such production he may be required to purchase articles which may be raw material, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose. As against this, if the same manufacturer purchases a refrigerator, television or air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even for his office has no direct or indirect nexus to generate profits, cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for afore-stated reason he is qualified to approach the Consumer Forum under the Act, 1986 - Similarly, a hospital which hires services of a medical practitioner, it would be a commercial purpose, but if a person avails such services for his ailment, it would be held to be a noncommercial purpose. (Para 39) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 - Rule 3 prescribed a minimum professional experience of 20 years for consideration to appointment of members as State Consumer Commissions- Rule 4 prescribed a minimum professional experience of 20 years for consideration to appointment of members as District Consumer Commissions- Rules struck down as violative of the SC judgment in Madras Bar Association judgment which held that lawyers with 10 years of professional experience are eligible for appointment as Tribunal members -the High Court in the impugned judgment and order has rightly observed and held that Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2020 which are contrary to the decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association; (2017) 1 SCC 444 and the Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another; (2021) 7 SCC 369 are unconstitutional and arbitrary. (Para 6.4) Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161 : AIR 2023 SC 1371

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 - Rule 6(9) lacks transparency and it confers uncontrolled discretion and excessive power to the Selection Committee. Under Rule 6(9), the Selection Committee is empowered with the uncontrolled discretionary power to determine its procedure to recommend candidates to be appointed as President and Members of the State and District Commission. (Para 6.5) Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161 : AIR 2023 SC 1371

Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 - Till the amendments are made in order to do complete justice under A. 142 we direct that in future a person having Bachelor's degree from a recognised university and who is a person of ability, integrity standing and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration etc. shall be treated as qualified for appointment as President and member of State and District Commission. We also direct that for appointment the appointment shall be based on the performance in 2 papers. Qualifying marks in the papers shall be 50% and there must be a viva for 50 marks each. (Para 8.2) Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161 : AIR 2023 SC 1371

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

The Consumer Protection Act' is definitely a piece of welfare legislation with the primary purpose of protecting the interest of a consumer. Consumer disputes are assigned by the legislature to public fora, as a measure of public policy. Therefore, by necessary implication such disputes will fall in the category of nonarbitrable disputes, and these disputes should be kept away from a private fora such as 'arbitration', unless both the parties willingly opt for arbitration over the remedy before public fora. M. Hemalatha Devi v. B. Udayasri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902

The Act, 1986 is a social benefit-oriented legislation and, therefore, the Court has to adopt a constructive liberal approach while construing the provisions of the Act - The provisions of the Act, 1986 thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit-oriented legislation. (Para 21, 24) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts. There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it. (Para 12) Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 251 : AIR 2023 SC 1762

The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) where the Commission had held that no case of deficiency of service was made out against drug-manufacturer, Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, in relation to administration of vaccine Engerix-B. The complainant had failed to prove the allegations with the minimal required evidence even on a preponderance of probability. Non-mentioning of 'myositis' as an adverse reaction in the literature accompanying the injection or on the 'vial', did not amount to 'deficiency of service' on part of the pharmaceutical company, more particularly when the adverse reaction was to the minimal level, i.e., 0.02 in one million. Prakash Bang v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 764 : AIR 2023 SC 4217

There is no such exclusion from the definition of the term “consumer” either to a commercial enterprise or to a person who is covered under the expression “person” defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, 1986 merely because it is a commercial enterprise. (Para 36) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Whether a commercial enterprise can be held to be a "consumer" in relation to dispute relating to insurance policy availed by it - Held yes in the facts of the case - hiring of insurance policy is clearly an act for indemnifying a risk of loss/damages and there is no element of profit generation - clarifies that it is not a general rule and depends on the facts of the case. (Para 44 to 47) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 12(1)(c) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 1 Rule 8 - The need for the application of Order I Rule 8 CPC, which speaks of a plaintiff representing the other public as a whole would be required only in a case involving a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1986 Act. In other words, it does not have any application when similarly placed complainants jointly make a complaint seeking the very same relief. In such a case, there is no question of Order I Rule 8 CPC being complied with as they do not represent the others, particularly when there is no larger public interest involved. Such complainants seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond. (Para 17) Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442 : AIR 2023 SC 2527

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(b)(i) – Definition of 'consumer' includes 'consumers' - Joint complaint by multiple consumers need not be filed in representative capacity. Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 13(6) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 1 Rule 8 - When a few consumers who have the same interest seeking the same relief file a joint complaint without any larger public interest involved, it need not be filed in a representative capacity. Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442 : AIR 2023 SC 2527

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d) - 'consumer' - 'commercial purpose' - A person buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity, will not be a 'consumer' entitled to protection of the Act - If the dominant purpose of purchasing the goods or services is for a profit motive and the said fact is evident from the record, such purchaser would not fall under the ambit of 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. However, the Explanation clarifies that even purchases in certain situations for 'commercial purposes' would not take within its sweep the purchaser out of the definition of expression 'consumer'. In other words, if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a 'consumer'. Rohit Chaudhary v. Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754 : AIR 2023 SC 4229

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d) - Taking a wide meaning of the words “for any commercial purpose”, it would mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose, but in a case where goods purchased or services hired is an activity, which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be a commercial purpose. (Para 40) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 21(a)(i) - Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Section 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) - Appeal against order of National Commission - An aggrieved party can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for grant of special leave to appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) only if it is passed by the Commission in its original jurisdiction. No further appeal will lie against the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. (Para 17) Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 22(1) r/w. 13(4)(iv) – Insurance claim - Leakage of gas - Reports of the loss Assessor and experts – Held, NCDRC made observations in the impugned judgment as if its members were experts in the relevant field and clothed with authority to sit in appeal over the same. The leak of ammonia gas was not occasioned due to wear and tear as claimed by the insurance company but was the outcome of an accident which was not foreseen and beyond its control and not covered by any of the exceptions in the Policy so as to entitle the company to claim immunity for the ultimate purpose of repudiating the insurance claim. The NCDRC committed serious error by not giving the reports placed on record the extent of credence the same deserved. The manner in which the NCDRC dealt with such reports was not proper and legal; major part of the reports could not have been rejected and only stray observations relied upon to support the conclusions. This is one of the foremost reasons which compels to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Repudiation of the insurance claim, on facts and in the circumstances, is held to amount to deficiency in service on its part. Therefore, see no reason to accept any of the grounds assigned by the NCDRC for rejection of the Complaint. (Para 34 – 34) S.S. Cold Storage India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Consumer disputes are non-arbitrable disputes and a party cannot be compelled into arbitration just because they are a signatory to an arbitration agreement. M. Hemalatha Devi v. B. Udayasri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902

The 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to approach the forums by providing a very flexible procedure. It is meant to encourage consumerism in the country. Any technical approach in construing the provisions against the consumer would go against the very objective behind the enactment. (Para 15) Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 442 : AIR 2023 SC 2527

Consumer Protection Rules, 2020

Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 - Supreme Court directs Centre and States to amend the rules in terms of the directions in Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr. Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 161 within a period of three months. In Re: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Contempt of Court

NCLAT judicial member facing Supreme Court's contempt notice resigns; SC slams tribunal for defying its direction. Orbit Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Kishan Chhabaria, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 957

Supreme Court shocked at advocate telling High Court that he won't argue before particular Bench, issues contempt notice. Krishna Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1053

Litigants liable for civil contempt on violating undertaking given on their behalf by advocate to court. Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750 : AIR 2023 SC 4390

'Contempt petition can't be filed against registry for not listing case on date specified by Court' : Supreme Court dismisses advocate's plea. Manoj v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 677

Supreme Court closes plea challenging Calcutta HC's contempt sentence against Andaman & Nicobar LG, Chief Secretary. Admiral D.K. Joshi v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Supreme Court imposes cost on State of U.P. for delay in complying with direction for premature release of 4 convicts. Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Doctor's license cannot be suspended by the Court as penalty in contempt proceedings. Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 577

'High Court could have considered unconditional apology': Supreme Court grants relief to ntpc officers sentenced by Telangana HC for contempt. Gurudeep Singh v. Regonda Srinivas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 530

Supreme Court sentences NRI father to 6 months imprisonment, imposes Rs 25 lakhs fine violating directions to bring minor son to india. Meenal Bhargava v. Naveen Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Advocate making baseless allegation that another lawyer took money in judge's name; Supreme Court affirms contempt of court proceedings. Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230

The Supreme Court initiates suo motu contempt proceedings against TN police officer for concealing material facts. Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Courts should not summon the appearance of officials at the “Drop of the Hat''. State of U.P. v. Prahalad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 176

When the highest court of the country has passed an order, the collector cannot await permission to implement it. Junagadh Municipal Corporation v. Adarsh Cooperative Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 103

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Supreme Court affirms contempt of court proceedings against advocate for raising frivolous allegation that another lawyer was taking money from clients in the name of judges - Reduces penalty from Rupees 2 lakhs to Rs 1 Lakh. Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Supreme Court has sentenced a non-resident Indian to six months imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 25 lakhs for contempt of court, for failing to bring back his minor son to India in terms of the orders passed by the top court from time to time and the undertaking given by him before the court to this effect. The acts and omissions of the contemnor, amounted to both civil and criminal contempt, calling for a strict action against him. The power of the court to punish a person for contempt is unrestricted by the Act. Meenal Bhargava v. Naveen Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 475

Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Supreme Court imposes cost on State of Uttar Pradesh for delay in complying with direction for premature release of 4 convicts. Mahendra v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 12 - Doctor's license cannot be suspended as penalty in contempt proceedings. (Para 19 -21) Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Although the transfer of the suit property pendente lite may not be termed as void ab initio yet when the court is looking into such transfers in contempt proceedings the court can definitely declare such transactions to be void in order to maintain the majesty of law. Apart from punishing the contemnor, for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. This may include issue of directions either for reversal of the transactions by declaring such transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to ensure that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him. (Para 116 (iii)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The apology tendered should not be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the same. The apology may be unconditional, unqualified and bona fide, still if the conduct is serious, which has caused damage to the dignity of the institution, the same should not be accepted. There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness. (Para 116 (v)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The beneficiaries of any contumacious transaction have no right or locus to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers of the property for value without notice and therefore, are necessary parties. Contempt is between the court and the contemnor and no third party can involve itself into the same. (Para 116 (iv)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - There exists a distinction between an undertaking given to a party to the lis and the undertaking given to a court. The undertaking given to a court attracts the provisions of the Act 1971 whereas an undertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the Act 1971. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the undertaking was given to the High Court and the breach or disobedience would definitely attract the provisions of the Act 1971. (Para 116 (ii)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 2 (b) - Assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel / advocate on behalf of his client to the court; the wilful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to “civil contempt”. (Para 116 (i)) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Contract

Awarding Govt. contracts through public tenders preferable; Departure from tender route must be reasonable. Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6 : AIR 2023 SC 314 : (2023) 1 SCR 473

Courts should exercise restraint while exercising judicial review in contracts involving complex technical issues. BTL EPC Ltd. v. Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 834

Deviation from plain terms of contract warranted only when it serves business efficacy better. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 983

Government Contracts - Government action must be just, fair and reasonable and in accordance with the principles of Article 14; and (ii) While government can deviate from the route of tenders or public auctions for the grant of contracts, the deviation must not be discriminatory or arbitrary. The deviation from the tender route has to be justified and such a justification must comply with the requirements of Article 14 - Government contracts involve expenditure out of the public exchequer. Since they involve payment out of the public exchequer, the moneys expended must not be spent arbitrarily. The State does not have absolute discretion while spending public money. (Para 21-22) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6 : AIR 2023 SC 314 : (2023) 1 SCR 473

Judicial review of tenders - Interpretation of tendering authority must prevail unless there malafides are alleged or proved. Sarr Freights Corporation v. Cjdarcl Logistics Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1006

No judicial review in commercial matters unless a case of arbitrariness, mala fide, bias or irrationality is made out. Tender / Contract - Courts not to needlessly interfere in contracts involving technical issues. The judges do not possess the necessary expertise to adjudicate technical issues beyond their domain. Restraint must be practiced in cases where the Courts are aware that their interference in technical commercial matters would incur loss to the Public Exchequer. Tata Motors Ltd. v. BrihanMumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467 : AIR 2023 SC 2717

Owner / employer who authored tender documents is the best person to understand & appreciate it. Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694 : AIR 2023 SC 4148

Party estopped from questioning the amount levied as per contract after signing it. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department v. Rattan India Power Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 32 : AIR 2023 SC 422 : (2023) 1 SCR 507

Principle of Estoppel - Signing the agreement and issuing an undertaking would estop Respondent No.1 from challenging the levy of Rs.1,00,000 as irrigation restoration charges- Court refuses to challenge the levy of 'irrigation restoration charges' by the Water Department from a company for supplying water for industrial purposes as per agreement. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department v. Rattan India Power Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 32 : AIR 2023 SC 422 : (2023) 1 SCR 507

Supreme Court imposes cost of Rs. 65 lakhs on Punjab State Power Corp Ltd for instituting multiple litigations to wriggle out of payment obligations. Nabha Power Ltd. v Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 876 : AIR 2023 SC 5033

Tenders - The process of inviting tenders ensures a level playing field for competing entities. While there may be situations which warrant a departure from the precept of inviting tenders or conducting public auctions, the departure must not be unreasonable or discriminatory. (Para 16) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6 : AIR 2023 SC 314 : (2023) 1 SCR 473

The Court should not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. A writ court should refrain from imposing its decision over the employer with respect to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer, unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467 : AIR 2023 SC 2717

The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467 : AIR 2023 SC 2717

When the Court initiates fresh tender at a stage when the contract is underway, the same consumes time and incurs losses to the public exchequer. The financial burden / implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467 : AIR 2023 SC 2717

Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra)

Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra) - Section 81(5B) of the Act casts a positive obligation on the auditor or the Registrar to file an FIR. It does not use any negative expression to prohibit persons other than the auditor or the Registrar from registering an FIR. Therefore, it would be contrary to basic principles of statutory construction to conclude that Section 81(5B) debars persons other than the auditor or the Registrar from filing an FIR. (Para 24) Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652

In suit for passing off, the plaintiff is required to prove figures of sale/ advertisement expenses to establish goodwill. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : AIR 2023 SC 4321

Copyright Act, 1957

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

Corporation

Any loss caused to State Corporation is loss to the public exchequer: Supreme Court directs lessee to pay conversion charges to KSEDCL. Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v Kumaon Entertainment and Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 863 : AIR 2023 SC 5044

Cost

Supreme Court imposes Rs. 3 lakhs costs on Sanjiv Bhatt for petitions against trial judge in alleged drugs planting case. Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 852

Court Deposit

Courts / Tribunals should mandatorily deposit amounts deposited by litigants with the Registry or Office in a bank account - Supreme Court issues directions - All courts and judicial forums should frame guidelines in cases where amounts are deposited with the office / registry of the court / tribunal, that such amounts should mandatorily be deposited in a bank or some financial institution, to ensure that no loss is caused in the future - These guidelines should be embodied in the form of appropriate rules, or regulations of each court, tribunal, commission, authority, agency, etc. exercising adjudicatory power. (Para 35) K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68 : AIR 2023 SC 705

The Supreme Court directs all courts/tribunals to mandatorily deposit amounts deposited by parties with registry in a bank/financial institution. K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68 : AIR 2023 SC 705

Cow

The Supreme Court expresses satisfaction with measures taken by centre & states to prevent lumpy skin disease in cows & cattle. Ashutosh Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1015

Prohibition of cow slaughter to be decided by legislature, court can't compel law making. Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535

CRZ Notification

CRZ Notification 2011: Storage facility for edible oil not allowed outside port area; Supreme Court affirms quashing of post-facto clearance. K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77 : AIR 2023 SC 808 : (2023) 5 SCC 440

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 - Storage facility for edible oil not allowed outside port areas- the word 'within' used for CRZ-I and 'in' used for CRZ-II in the CRZ Notification of 2011 cannot be interpreted to include what is outside the port areas-The maker of the notification has not even contemplated the activities in question in a 'port area'. We must here elucidate and observe that if the contention is to be upheld that a storage tank can be permitted outside the port limits, it will introduce chaos. The question would arise as to up to what distance from the port area it would be considered as the 'in the port area'. The 2011 Notification cannot receive an interpretation which would leave matters of moment to be afflicted with the vice of uncertainty. This is apart from the importance of avoiding an interpretation which seemingly allows free play in the joints to the Administrator but, atthe same time, vest an arbitrary power in him. (Para 58) K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77 : AIR 2023 SC 808 : (2023) 5 SCC 440

Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu)

Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu); Section 3 - Late payment of rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court, is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction of the cultivating tenant. The 1955 Act confers a privilege on the cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, by which the cultivating tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord. Further, the scope of eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord, is circumscribed by the Act. Thus, the limited grounds for eviction of the cultivating tenant by the landlord under the Act, must not be frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant. K. Chinnammal v. L.R. Eknath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437 AIR 2023 SC 3534 : (2023) 6 SCR 831

Customs

Customs Duty - Undervaluation must be proved by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports; else benefit of doubt goes to the importer. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Ganpati Overseas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864

The Customs Act does not create a statutory first charge overriding charge in favour of secured creditor under S. 529A of Companies Act. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683

Supreme Court upholds withdrawal of Customs notification granting concession on import of printing machinery, on the ground of indigenous angle. Union of India v. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430 : AIR 2023 SC 2343

Customs Act 1962 : Supreme Court delivers split verdict on jurisdiction of settlement commission in relation to goods under Section 123. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Customs Act, 1962

Customs Act, 1962 - The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in respect to the issue whether jurisdiction of Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies. While considering the conflicting judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court the bench expressed divergent views. Supporting the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, Justice Krishna Murari opined that in cases of seizures of smuggled goods within the customs areas, Section 123 of the Customs Act would not be applicable and the accused can make application to Settlement Commission under Section 127B. Justice Sanjay Karol opined that the bar in Section 127B precludes filing an application for settlement in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies [for example gold and watches are specified under S.123]. The Division Bench asked the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate order. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Customs Act, 1962 - The Supreme Court has upheld the withdrawal of customs notification which granted customs duty concession to “Rotary Printing Machine” of 'single width two plate variety', on the ground of indigenous angle, i.e., availability of the equipment in India. The same cannot be characterized as an irrelevant factor for withdrawing tax concession. The grant of exemption to a class of goods, which are similar to those manufactured within the country, is likely to adversely impact such manufacturers or producers. Thus, the same is a germane and relevant factor for withdrawal of such exemption. The executive has an exclusive domain in fiscal and economic matters, including determining the relevant factors for granting, refusing or amending exemptions. Thus, the role of the court is confined to decide if the executive's decision is backed by germane and not irrelevant reasons. Union of India v. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430 : AIR 2023 SC 2343

Customs Act, 1962; Section 14 - If the department wants to allege under valuation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence. If the charge of under valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. The charge of under invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. (Para 39.1) Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Ganpati Overseas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864

Delay

Liberal approach be taken regarding delay in appeals filed by state. Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865 : AIR 2023 SC 5109

Justice oriented approach to be adopted while dealing with delay condonation plea. Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Being short of funds to pay court fees is not a sufficient reason to condone delay to file an appeal. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 - Clause XII Rule 7C - The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Delhi High Court that permitted re-evaluation of the answer script of a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judicial Main Examination 2022 on the ground that there was no 'material error' warranting interference. (Para 5) Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 - The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court judgment which held that dwellers of jhuggis which are outside the list of recognized jhuggi clusters are not entitled to rehabilitation. Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555

Delimitation

Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation - There is no illegality associated with the delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K undertaken by the Delimitation Commission - there is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020 - There is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed - findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. We are aware that the issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending - Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving our imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution. (Para 31 - 46) Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 98 : AIR 2023 SC 951

Demonetisation

'Any' means 'All' : Supreme Court says Centre can demonetise all series of bank notes invoking Section 26(2) of RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Demonetisation is not illegal merely because the proposal originated from the central govt; no breach of Sec 26(2) RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Demonetisation is not invalid merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Demonetisation decision making process valid, Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Discussion in parliament on demonetisation would have given it legitimacy: Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

RBI has no independent power to accept demonetised notes beyond the period specified in centre's notification. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

RBI didn't independently apply its mind in recommending demonetisation, Entire exercise carried out in 24 hours : Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Whether demonetisation achieved its objectives is not relevant to decide its legality. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Digitization of Records

The Supreme Court orders High Courts to ensure digitization of District Court records to facilitate smooth functioning of the judicial process. Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Disability

Disability rights - twin conditions in RWPD Act creating barriers, says Supreme Court while granting relief to person with colour blindness. Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court gives relief to person with colour blindness, asks TANGEDCO to appoint him as assistant engineer. Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court directs states to appoint chief commissioners, frame rules under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016. Seema Girija v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 545

Persons with Disability Act, 1995 mandated reservation in promotions too : Supreme Court grants relief to RBI employee. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Disability Rights & CLAT - Supreme Court passes further guidelines to ensure access to CLAT for candidates with disabilities. Arnab Roy v. Consortium of National Law Universities, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 349

DNA Test

Children's right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously is part of their privacy right: Supreme Court on power to order 'DNA Test'. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 122

Doctor

Allopathy doctors and ayurveda doctors do not perform equal work and are not entitled to equal pay. State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 350 : AIR 2023 SC 2164

Drugs & Cosmetics

Doctor can't be punished under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act for storing small quantities of medicines. S. Athilakshmi v. State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 194 : (2023) 2 SCR 914

Education

HC erred in holding an 18 months diploma in elementary education through open distance learning equivalent to 2 years regular diploma. Jaiveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1023

'No quality education if a student is penalised based on religion' : Supreme court slams UP Govt & police on Muzaffarnagar student slapping. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Prescribe minimum marks requirement for languages other than Tamil & English also in TN schools: Supreme Court in linguistic minorities' plea. Linguistic Minorities Forum of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 839

The Supreme Court refuses to interfere with the Lakshadweep administration's decision to drop meat from the school mid-day meal menu. Ajmal Ahmed v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 803

Unacceptable that national law university jodhpur has only contractual teachers; can't expect excellence without regular staff. National Law University Jodhpur v. Prashant Mehta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 785

The Supreme Court deprecates High Courts allowing admission to educational institutions through interim orders. National Commission for Homeopathy v. Swanirbhar Homeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal Gujarat State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 726

B.Ed. graduates ineligible for the post of primary school teachers, holds supreme court; says 'right to education includes quality education'. Devesh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 : AIR 2023 SC 3895

UP Intermediate Education Act - Appointment process of teachers not concluded without approval by District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

U.P. Intermediate Education Act - No 'deemed appointment' of selected candidate if dios doesn't give approval within 15 days. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

UP Intermediate Education Act - Vacancies which existed before amendment of regulation 17 are to be governed by amended rules. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Court cannot declare equivalency of a course. Unnikrishnan C.V. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256 : AIR 2023 SC 1943

Post graduate degree from an open university without undergoing a basic degree course is not valid. P. Raman v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 169

'Schools can't be without playgrounds; students entitled to a good environment' : Supreme Court orders removal of encroachments. State of Haryana v. Satpal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 163 : AIR 2023 SC 1391 : (2023) 6 SCC 643 : (2023) 2 SCR 12

E-Filing

Supreme Court refuses to allow an exception to women lawyers - not inclined to accept the submission that there should be a general exception to female practitioners and litigants. There is no reason to postulate that there is a gender divide in one's inherent ability to use technology. (Para 20) M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276

E-Filing and Virtual Courts - There can be no gainsaying the fact that e-filing provides transparency and efficiency in the administration of justice. E-filing provides for 24x7 access to the court system and, in fact, facilitates the convenience of lawyers as well as litigants. With the march of technology, it would be too late in the day to postulate that e-filing should not be adopted. As a matter of fact, the decision to take up e-filing must be replicated by other tribunals and courts in the country, including the High Courts in a phased manner and that it eventually becomes mandatory. (Para 12) M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276

Ensure e-filing of all revenue appeals before HCs and Tribunals: Supreme Court directs centre. CCE and ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 106

It is utterly incomprehensible why NCLAT should insist on physical filing in addition to e-filing. This unnecessarily burdens litigants and the Bar and is a disincentive for e-filing. This duplication of effort is time consuming. It adds to expense. It leaves behind a carbon footprint which is difficult to efface. The judicial process has traditionally been guzzling paper. This model is not environmentally sustainable. (Para 30) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

It would defeat the purpose if in addition to e-filing, the ITATs insist on filing of the appeals in the physical mode. This has to be discontinued since it imposes an unnecessary burden on litigants. If there is a training deficit in respect of the Members of the ITAT, this shall be attended to immediately so that all Members of the ITAT are equipped to handle e-filed cases. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Judiciary has to modernize' : supreme court deprecates NCLAT's insistence on physical filing of appeals in addition to e-filing. Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Supreme Court affirms mandatory e-filing in DRTs and DRATs - Issues directions to enable access to people who are technologically deprived - Directions issued to set up e-sewa kendras. M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276

Supreme Court affirms mandatory e-filing in DRTs & DRATs, says other courts should replicate it. M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276

The judiciary has to modernize and adapt to technology. The tribunals can be no exception. This can no longer be a matter of choice. If some judges are uncomfortable with e-files, the answer is to provide training to them and not to continue with old and outmoded ways of working. If a lawyer or litigant is compelled to file physical copies in addition to e-filed documents, then they will not resort to e-filing. (Para 30) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Why presume women are bad at technology?' : CJI DY Chandrachud disapproves of plea to exempt female lawyers from e-filing. M.P. High Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 276

Would defeat the purpose of e-filing if ITATs insist on filing of appeals in physical mode too. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Election

The Supreme Court refers the electoral bonds case to the Constitution Bench. Association for Democratics Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 901

Supreme Court (2:1 Majority) suspends conviction of BSP MP Afsal Ansari; dissenting judge says impact on electorate can't be considered. Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1055

The Supreme Court issues guidelines to high courts to monitor early disposal of cases against MPs/MLAs. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 971

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment which invalidated the assembly election of Arunachal Pradesh MLA Dasanglu Pul. Dasanglu Pul v. Lupalam Kri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 912 : AIR 2023 SC 5265

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking independent audit of EVM source codes. Sunit Ahya v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Aadhaar number not mandatory for electoral rolls, will make changes in forms to enrol new voters: ECI Tells Supreme Court. G. Niranjan v. Election Commission of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 805

Courts must interfere in the election process if there's unjust executive action or attempt to disturb the level playing field. Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

'Unprecedented' : Supreme Court slams Ladakh Administration for denying symbol to JK National Conference in LAHDC-Kargil Elections. Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Supreme Court sets aside notification for LAHDC-Kargil elections; Holds JKNC entitled to 'plough' symbol. Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Filing of affidavit under section 83(1)(c) proviso of Representation of People Act not mandatory requirement ; substantial compliance sufficent. Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 705 : AIR 2023 SC 4531

Election contests are purely a statutory proceeding, provisions must be strictly interpreted. Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661 : AIR 2023 SC 3868

NHRC was not right in seeking to supervise West Bengal panchayat polls; conduct of elections SEC's sole responsibility. National Human Rights Commission v. West Bengal State Election Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Supreme Court dismisses PIL challenging appointment of Arun Goel as election commissioner. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Supreme Court stays conviction of congress leader Rahul Gandhi in 'modi-thieves' defamation case which disqualified him as MP. Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Voter has the right to know the full background of the candidate; the right to vote based on informed choice is crucial to democracy. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563 : AIR 2023 SC 3574

Maharashtra Case - Governor's decision for floor test wrong, but Uddhav Govt can't be restored as he resigned. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

'Governor can't enter the political arena, floor test not to decide intra-party disputes ': Supreme Court slams Maharashtra Governor. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Shiv Sena Case - Supreme Court refers 'Nabam Rebia' Judgment to larger bench; says it is in conflict with 'Kihoto Hollohan' Judgment. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Shiv Sena Case - Speaker's decision recognising Eknath Shinde as leader & Gogawale as whip illegal; only political party can appoint whip & leader. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

Test of legislative majority futile to decide who is 'real' Shiv Sena; ECI's recognition will apply prospectively. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 422 : AIR 2023 SC 2406

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

Election petition liable to be dismissed on showing no cause of action; vague allegations not material facts. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 : AIR 2023 SC 2366

Supreme Court quashes forgery case against former Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal & Akali Dal leaders over party's dual constitution. Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053

'Open ballot system in Rajya Sabha elections necessitated to prevent cross-voting' : Supreme Court rejects challenge to Election Rules. Lok Prahari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 254

The Supreme Court directs appointment of election commissioners on advise of committee comprising Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and CJI. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155 : (2023) 6 SCC 161 : (2023) 9 SCR 1

'Certain Section of media turned unashamedly partisan; Huge surge of money power in elections': Supreme Court Observes in ECI Case. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Election Commission needs permanent secretariat, expenses should be charged on consolidated fund: Supreme Court suggests. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Should election commissioners have the same protection as CEC? the Supreme Court majority says no, Justice Ajay Rastogi says yes. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Arun Goel's appointment as election commissioner raises pertinent questions at procedure; EC should have 6 years tenure. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

'Majoritarian forces must be counterbalanced, abuse of electoral process way to grave of democracy ': top quotes from Supreme Court's ECI verdict. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

ECI Case - Right to vote is a part of fundamental rights, says Justice Rastogi; majority judgment opines it's a constitutional right. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Municipal Corporation of Delhi mayor polls: Nominated members can't vote, holds Supreme Court; Election to be notified in 24 hours. Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : (2023) 5 SCC 414

'For Parliament to decide whether to allow candidates to contest from two seats' : Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Sec 33(7) RP Act. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 84 : AIR 2023 SC 891 : (2023) 5 SCC 668

Electricity

Electricity Act - Captive generating plant having more than one user and fluctuating shareholding, consumption to be calculated using “weighted average” principle. Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Gayatri Shakti Paper and Board Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 888

The Supreme Court criticises OERC for challenging APTEL's order, saying the quasi-judicial body can't be aggrieved with the appellate body's order. GRIDCO Ltd. v. Western Electricity Supply Company, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855 : AIR 2023 SC 4884

'Governor cannot stultify a government like this": Supreme Court rebukes Delhi LG for delaying appointment of DERC chairperson. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Electricity dues of previous occupier can be recovered from subsequent occupier of premises. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

CERC can't go beyond express terms of contract; APTEL can't discover new "change in law" which parties never contemplated. Haryana Power Purchase Centre v. Sasan Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 409

'Specific show-cause notice necessary before imposing penalty': Supreme Court quashes debarment and penalty order issued by MP DISCOM. Isolators and Isolators v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330 : AIR 2023 SC 2058

DISCOMS to pay 'change in law' compensation for all additional charges levied by state instrumentalities to power generating companies. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Appellate Electricity Tribunal cannot casually render findings of coercion without proper pleading, proof or probe. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Diversion of gas to other generating stations is not sufficient ground to seek compensation when PPA has no such provision. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Supreme Court upholds 'Change in Law' compensation for Adani Power; Flays State DISCOMs for taking a stand contrary to Union Govt. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166 : AIR 2023 SC 1495 : (2023) 7 SCC 401

Electricity Act, 2003

Electricity Act 2003; Section 84 (2) - Appointment of the Chairperson - The substantive part of sub-section (2) indicates that the State Government may appoint any person as the Chairperson from “amongst persons who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court”. However, in terms of the proviso, an appointment under the subsection has to be made only after consultation with the Chief Justice “of that High Court”. The expression “of that High Court” makes it abundantly clear that the consultation has to be made with the Chief Justice of the High Court from which the Judge or, as the case may be, the former Judge is drawn. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Office of LG of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 476

Electricity Act, 2003 - In the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Electric Utilities have been directed in the facts of cases before us to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003 - The implication of the expression “as is where is” basis is that every intending bidder is put on notice that the seller does not undertake responsibility in respect of the property offered for sale with regard to any liability for the payment of dues, like service charges, electricity dues for power connection, and taxes of the local authorities. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 178 - In a case where the matter is governed by express terms of the contract, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission cannot, even donning the garb of a regulatory body, go beyond the express terms of the contract. A regulation made under Section 178 of the Act has the effect of interfering and overriding the existing contractual relationship between the regulated entities. However, while it may be open for a regulation to extricate a party from its contractual obligations, the Commission cannot in the course of its adjudicatory power, use the nomenclature regulation to usurp this power to disregard the terms of the contract. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity cannot discover a new 'change in law' which the parties have not contemplated as change in law, and the Tribunal cannot rewrite the contract and create a new bargain between the parties. Haryana Power Purchase Centre v. Sasan Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - For an application to be considered as a 'reconnection', the applicant has to seek supply of electricity with respect to the same premises for which electricity was already provided. Even if the consumer is the same, but the premises are different, it will be considered as a fresh connection and not a reconnection. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute, and is subject to the such charges and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 43 - The duty to supply electricity under Section 43 is with respect to the owner or occupier of the premises. The 2003 Act contemplates a synergy between the consumer and premises. Under Section 43, when electricity is supplied, the owner or occupier becomes a consumer only with respect to those particular premises for which electricity is sought and provided by the Electric Utilities. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 49 - A condition of supply enacted under Section 49 of the 1948 Act requiring the new owner of the premises to clear the electricity arrears of the previous owner as a precondition to availing electricity supply will have a statutory character. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 50 - The Electricity Supply Code providing for recoupment of electricity dues of a previous consumer from a new owner have a reasonable nexus with the objects of the 2003 Act. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 50 - The scope of the regulatory powers of the State Commission under Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to stipulate conditions for recovery of electricity arrears of previous owners from new or subsequent owners. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 56 - The power to initiate recovery proceedings by filing a suit against the defaulting consumer is independent of the power to disconnect electrical supply as a means of recovery under Section 56 of the 2003 Act. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003; Sections 50 and 181 - The rule making power contained under Section 181 read with Section 50 of the 2003 Act is wide enough to enable the regulatory commission to provide for a statutory charge in the absence of a provision in the plenary statute providing for creation of such a charge. K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Electricity Act, 2003 – Appeal under Section 125 – Plea of Fraud, Coercion, Duress, or Undue Influence – Party that sets up plea of fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence must prima facie establish it by laying out material facts – Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) not to render findings on coercion without proper and specific pleadings, adequate evidence, or without conducting a probe, in a casual or cavalier way – Held, concurrent findings of APTEL and state commission unsustainable owing to the absence of evidence of coercion and particularity of pleadings beyond a bare allegation – Appeal allowed. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315

Electricity Act, 2003 - Supreme Court has lamented the practice of Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) and power generating companies pursuing endless litigation challenging the concurrent findings arrived at by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The Court has asked the Union of India through the Ministry of Power (MoP), to evolve a mechanism so as to ensure timely payment by DISCOMS to the power generating companies under the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). All additional charges which are payable on account of orders, directions, Notifications, Regulations, etc., issued by the instrumentalities of the State, after the cut-off date specified in the PPAs, will have to be considered to be 'Change in Law' events for payment of compensation under the PPAs. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Electricity Act, 2003 - Compensation for "Change in Law" clause in PPA - SC dismisses petition filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited challenging the 'Change in Law' compensation granted by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to Adani Power Maharashtra Limited and GMR Warora Energy Limited-we find that the stand taken by the DISCOMS that, since the loss being sustained by the generating companies is on account of non-fulfillment of obligation by CIL/Coal Companies, they should be relegated to the remedy available to them in law against the CIL/Coal Companies, is totally unreasonable. The claim is based on change of NCDP 2007 by NCDP 2013, which, undisputedly, is covered by the term 'Change in Law. (Para 151) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166 : AIR 2023 SC 1495 : (2023) 7 SCC 401

Electricity Act, 2003 - Diversion of gas to other generating stations not sufficient ground to seek compensation when Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) has no such provision. Penna Electricity Ltd. (Now Pioneer Power Ltd.) v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Electricity Act, 2003 - The Court took note of the fact that the DISCOMS (Distribution Companies) which are instrumentalities of the State had taken contrary view to that of the Union Government, which contemplates that the generators would be entitled to pass-through for the coal required to be imported or purchased from the open market on the ground of Change in Law. Referring to Central Warehousing Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) And Ors. (2022), the Court observed that the Apex Court had deprecated the practice of different instrumentalities of the State taking contradictory / different positions / stands on the same issue - We have come across a number of matters wherein concurrent orders passed by the Regulatory Body and the Appellate Forum are assailed. Such a litigation would, in fact, efface the purpose of the Electricity Act. As already discussed herein above, one of the major reasons for the enactment of the Electricity Act was the deterioration in performance of the State Electricity Boards. (Para 150) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 166 : AIR 2023 SC 1495 : (2023) 7 SCC 401

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 62 and 111 - Electricity Regulatory Commission - the Commission exercises quasi-judicial powers. There are appeals preferred by the Commission against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in appeals. The Appellate Tribunal in appeals has dealt with the legality and validity of the decisions of the Commission rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial power. In short, the Appellate Tribunal has tested the correctness of the orders of the Commission. The Commission is bound by the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we have serious doubt about the propriety and legality of the act of the Commission of preferring appeals against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in appeal by which its own orders have been corrected. The Commission cannot be the aggrieved party except possibly in one appeal where the issue was about the non-compliance by the Commission of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. If the Commission was exercising legislative functions, the position would have been different. (Para 26) GRIDCO Ltd. v. Western Electricity Supply Company, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855

Electricity Act, 2003; Section 84 and 125 - Electricity Regulatory Commission - Members of the Commission are experts in the field - Therefore, when we consider the challenge to the decisions of the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal, we must keep in mind that the decisions are of a body of experts. This limitation is apart from the constraints of Section 125 of the Electricity Act of entertaining an appeal only on a substantial question of law. Therefore, this Court will normally be slow in interfering with the factual findings recorded by the Commission and/or by the Appellate Tribunal. (Para 25) GRIDCO Ltd. v. Western Electricity Supply Company, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 855

Electricity Rules, 2005; Rule 3(1)(a) Second Proviso - In cases where a Captive Generating Plant (CGP) has more than one user and fluctuating shareholding or any change in ownership, shareholding, or consumption occurs, the principle of “Weighted Average” should be applied to determine the proportional electricity consumption of each user. (Para 47) Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Gayatri Shakti Paper and Board Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 888

Employees Compensation Act, 1923

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Officers of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) are entitled to claim compensation under the 1923 Act, despite the RPF being designated as an armed force of the Union. The case arose when the heirs of an RPF Constable, who died during his employment, sought compensation under the 1923 Act. The Appellant contended that as a part of the Armed Forces of the Union, the deceased was not a 'workman' under the Act. The Apex Court rejected this contention, emphasizing the lack of legislative intent to exclude RPF members from the benefits of the 1923 Act, even after its designation as an armed force. The definition of a 'Railway Servant' in the Railways Act, 1989, includes RPF members, making them eligible for compensation under the 1923 Act. The designation of the RPF as an "armed force of the Union" did not automatically exempt its members from the provisions of the 1923 Act, unless such intent was evident. (Para 61) Railway Protection Special Force v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 835

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Social welfare legislation must be given a beneficial construction – Matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen awareness of the scope and intent of the Act. (Para 30) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746

Employees Compensation Act, 1923; Section 30 - An appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered – Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts – The other ground making the order under challenge, amenable to interference when the scope of jurisdiction is circumscribed by it being exercised only in cases of “substantial question of law”, is perversity in the findings. (Para 17- 21) Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; Section 2b - Once the EPF Act contains a specific provision defining the words 'basic wage', then there was no occasion for the appellant to expect the Court to have travelled to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to give it a different connotation or an expansive one, as sought to be urged. Clearly, that was not the intention of the legislature. (Para 4) Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation and should be interpreted in such a manner so that social security can be given to the employees. (Para 6, 6.1) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53 : AIR 2023 SC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 1045

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 1 (6) - Prior to insertion of Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act, only those establishments/factories engaging more than 20 employees were governed by the ESI Act. However, thereafter, Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the ESI Act has been inserted on 20.10.1989, and after 20.10.1989 there is a radical change and under the amended provision a factory or establishment to which ESI Act applies would be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act. Therefore, on and after 20.10.1989, irrespective of number of persons employed a factory or an establishment shall be governed by the ESI Act. (Para 7) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53 : AIR 2023 SC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 1045

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 1 (6) - Sub-section (6) of Section 1 shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 and the ESI Act shall be applicable irrespective of the number of persons employed or notwithstanding that the number of persons employed at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act - Only in case of demand notice for the period prior to inserting Sub-section (6) of Section 1 of the Act, it can be said that the same provision has been applied retrospectively. (Para 7) ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53 : AIR 2023 SC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 1045

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(14AA) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(k) - “manufacturing process” - the firm's utilization of electrical energy for repairing electrical goods would make it fall within the definition of “power” used in the “manufacturing process” under both the ESI Act and Factories Act,1948. The word Manufacturing process also includes “repairing” any article for its use. Admittedly, the shop premises is used not only for selling goods, but also to service electrical goods. That being the position, it is clear that the appellant firm falls under the definition of a “Factory” and is using a “manufacturing process”, as contemplated under both the Statues. (Para 8 & 9) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(15)(C) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(g) - “power” - the electronic goods shop which sells goods and repairs/services such goods can be said to be engaged in a “manufacturing process” using “power” as defined under ESI Act and Factories Act. (Para 10) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Sections 2(12) - Factories Act, 1948; Section 2(k) - “factory” - Electronics shop repairing and servicing electrical goods is “factory” under ESI Act. (Para 9) J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Pathological labs in Kerala covered under ESI Act from 2007 and not from 2002, by virtue of a Government Notification issued on 06.09.2007 - If the pathological laboratories were already covered under the Act there was no occasion to issue such a notification - Even as per the understanding of the Corporation, pathological laboratories were not covered under the Act prior to that date – Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the ESI Corporation. (Para 13-15) E.S.I. Corporation v. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; Sections 53, 61 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; Section 163A, 167 - Can an employee insured under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act - Whether the insurance amount paid under the ESI Act is a “similar benefit” as the compensation which is claimed in a case where there is a Motor Vehicle accident and claim subsists so as to bar the same - Referred to larger bench. Rajkumar Agrawal v. Vehicle Tata Venture, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 62

Equity

Equity will follow the law and it would tilt in favour of law and further that to claim equity the party must explain previous conduct. (Para 14) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

Environment

Environment and Wildlife Protection - Supreme Court extends the jurisdiction of a committee constituted by the Tripura High Court to oversee transfer of wild animals pan-India- Court directs that all State and Central Authorities shall forthwith report seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive wild animals to the Committee and the Committee shall be at liberty to recommend transfer of ownership of captive animals or of seized wild animals to any willing rescue centre or zoo for their immediate welfare, care and rehabilitation- The Committee may also consider the request for approval, dispute or grievance, concerning transfer or import into India or procurement or welfare of wild animals by any rescue or rehabilitation centre or zoo. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164 : AIR 2023 SC 1368

Environment Protection - Supreme Court disapproves of constructing zoos and enclosures within national parks - Prima facie, we do not appreciate the necessity of having a zoo inside the tiger reserves or national parks. The concept of protecting these is to permit animals to reside in their natural environs and not artificial environs. We, therefore, also call upon the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to explain the rationale behind permitting such safaris within tiger reserves and national parks. Until further orders, the authorities are restrained from making any constructions within the core areas of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Stubble Burning - Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act creating problems, need relook : Supreme Court tells Punjab Govt. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 964

Ludicrous that smog towers aren't working: Supreme Court summons Chairperson of Delhi Pollution Control Committee. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 964

The Supreme Court questions the effectiveness of Delhi's 'odd-even' scheme in controlling pollution. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 964

Delhi air pollution - Stop stubble burning forthwith, Supreme Court directs Punjab, Haryana, U.P. and Rajasthan. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 964

Tamil Nadu's ban on reinforced paper cups reasonable, in public interest to control pollution. Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Paper Cup Manufactures Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 923

De-sealing of properties in Delhi: Supreme Court forms committee of retired judges to hear challenge to monitoring committee orders. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Registration of all BS VI diesel compliant vehicles permissible in NCT Delhi. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Whether ESI Act excludes NGT jurisdiction? Supreme Court leaves question of law open while affirming NGT award on gas leak compensation. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593

NGT cannot pass directions relying on recommendations of an expert committee without giving parties a chance to rebut it. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524

Metro rail caters to millions, reduces carbon emissions': Supreme Court refuses to interfere with dmrc phase-iv metro work. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363

The Supreme Court expresses concern about unregulated visits of devotees in places of worship situated in national parks & sanctuaries. In re: T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 362

The Supreme Court modified its previous order mandating a 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around protected forests. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Aarey Case - Supreme Court imposes rs 10 lakh fine on Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) for seeking to cut more trees than allowed; but allows it to cut 177 trees. In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 334

'NGT could not have ignored decree affirmed by Supreme Court': SC allows housing society's appeal. Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Johi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 258 : AIR 2023 SC 1558

Appeal maintainable before NGT against corrigendum imposing additional conditions to environmental clearance. IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192 : (2023) 6 SCC 585

The Supreme Court issues directions for installation of vapour recovery system in retail petroleum outlets. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2023 SC 1573 : (2023) 7 SCC 368

NGT has powers to execute its orders as decrees of Civil Court. Sushil Raghav v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 140

The Supreme Court disapproves of building zoos inside tiger reserves; stops constructions within core areas of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Human life is equally important as protection of the environment; Projects necessary for country's economic development can't be stalled. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102

No doubt that the concern for the environment is an important aspect. However, at the same time, developmental works like the metro rail, which will cater to millions of people and also reduce carbon emissions, inasmuch as the number of vehicles on the road would be reduced, cannot be ignored. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363

The contest between development and environmental concerns is ever ongoing. While there is no doubt that ecology and environment need to be protected for the future generations, at the same time, development projects cannot be stalled, which are necessary not only for the economic development of the country, but at times for the safety of the citizens as well. No doubt that the protection of environment and ecology are important. However, at the same time, it cannot be denied that human life is also equally important. Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 102

Taj Trapezium matter: Supreme Court allows more flights to agra, removes restriction on increasing air traffic. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Make environmental impact assessment mandatory for urban development, recommends supreme court; cites condition of bengaluru as warning. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24 : AIR 2023 SC 570

Metro Rail - Supreme Court refused to interfere with the construction work on phase-IV of Delhi Metro, stating that any interference at this stage would also result in a huge escalation of its cost, causing a loss to the public exchequer. In re : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not be permissible. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

The Supreme Court prohibits conversion of residential units into floor-wise apartments in Chandigarh phase 1 to protect 'corbusier' heritage. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - If the direction as contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated June 3, 2022 that even for continuation of existing activities, the permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) of each State or Union Territory would be necessary, remains unmodified, taking into consideration that in each State or Union Territory there will be hundreds of villages wherein millions of people would be residing, the PCCF would be left with no other job except to consider such applications for permission to continue such activities. Even a farmer desirous to continue farming activities would be required to seek such permission. We find that such a direction is impossible to be implemented. If such a direction is continued, rather than avoiding man-animal conflict, it will intensify the same. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - If the direction as issued by this Court in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 is continued, then no permanent structure would be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose in the aforesaid ESZs. Hundreds of villages are situated within the ESZs in the country. If no permanent construction is to be permitted for any purpose, a villager who is desirous to reconstruct his house would not be permitted. Similarly, if the Government decides to construct schools, dispensaries, anganwadis, village stores, water tanks and other basic structures for improvement of the life of the villagers, the same would also not be permitted. The effect of the order will be to prevent the State or the Central Government from constructing roads and provide other facilities to the villagers. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - The Court modified the directions contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated June 3, 2022 as follows: 1. The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities. 2. We further direct that while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities in ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) - the requirement of declaring ESZs is not to hamper day to day activities of the citizens but is meant to protect the precious forests/Protected Areas from any negative impact, and to refine the environment around the Protected Areas. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Environmental Clearance - Supreme Court permits IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited to continue operating its power plants in Tamil Nadu. IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192 : (2023) 6 SCC 585

Environmental Impact Assessment - Supreme Court recommends making environmental assessment mandatory for urban development - We therefore appeal to the Legislature, the Executive and the Policy Makers at the Centre as well as at the State levels to make necessary provisions for carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment studies before permitting urban development. Residents Welfare Association v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24 : AIR 2023 SC 570 : AIR 2023 SC 570 : AIR 2023 SC 570 : (2023) 8 SCC 643

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns at the unregulated number of devotees visiting places of worship which are situated in national parks and sanctuaries. In re: T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 362

The Supreme Court modified its order dated June 3, 2022 to the extent that directions in the said order mandating a 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around protected forests would not be applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a draft and final notification has been issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) and in respect of the proposals which have been received by the Ministry. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Environment Protection Act, 1986

Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Supreme Court upholds the directions of NGT Chennai that all petroleum outlets in cities having population of more than 10 lakh and having turnover of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the Vapour Recovery System (VRS) mechanism- SC however sets aside NGT directions that new petroleum outlets should mandatorily obtain Consent to Establish and existing outlets should have Consent to Operate. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2023 SC 1573 : (2023) 7 SCC 368

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5 - The area to be declared as ESZ cannot be uniform and will be Protected Area specific. In some cases, it may be 10 kilometres on one side and 500 meters on the other side. In certain cases, it may not be possible to have a uniform minimum area by virtue of inter-state boundaries or a sea or a river beyond one side of the Protected Area. In any case, a detailed procedure is required to be followed as prescribed under Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules. Once such a notification is issued after following the procedure prescribed under the 1986 Rules, the ESZs will have to be as per the said notification. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Estoppel and Acquiescence

In the case of acquiescence the representations are to be inferred from silence, but mere silence, mere inaction could not be construed to be a representation and in order to be a representation it must be inaction or silence in circumstances which require a duty to speak and therefore, amounting to fraud or deception - In the absence of any misrepresentation by an act or omission, the mere fact after making objection the plaintiff took some reasonable time to approach the Court for recovery of possession cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be a reason to deny him the relief him of recovery of possession of the encroached land on his establishing his title over it. (Para 18-21) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

Evidence

Testimony of the sole eyewitness who is the complainant needs examination with great caution. Chhote Lal v. Rohtash, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1069

If a document required to be stamped is insufficiently stamped, copy of the document cannot be adduced as secondary evidence. Vijay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Principles on admissibility of secondary evidence: Supreme Court explains. Vijay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1022

Extra-judicial confession must be of sterling quality: Supreme Court doubts 'confession' to brother of deceased. Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 989

Need to separate the chaff from the grain only where testimony is partly reliable and partly unreliable. Balaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 981

S.65B Evidence Act certificate can be produced at any stage of trial: Supreme Court allows prosecution plea in 2008 Bangalore Blasts Case. State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Thadiantavida Naseer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Section 27 Evidence Act - Recovery of a weapon from an open place accessible to all not reliable. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 961

Examination of the person who recorded the dying declaration is essential. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 961

Witness not discredited by mere contradiction between testimony and statement given to police. Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 941 : AIR 2023 SC 5644

Principles to be followed in case of multiple dying declarations: Supreme Court explains. Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 907

When notice is returned as 'unclaimed', it must be deemed proper service; 'unclaimed' same as 'refusal'. Priyanka Kumari v. Shailendra Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Merely because a person is educated & god fearing, it can't be said that he has a good reputation. Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889

Principles relating to plea of alibi & delaying in registering FIR : Supreme Court explains. Kamal Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 891

Principles of applying Section 106 of Evidence Act : Supreme Court explains. Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 861

Panchnama inadmissible in court where witnesses merely acted as attestors and did not disclose how objects were discovered. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814

S. 27 Evidence Act - Discovery can't be proved against a person if he wasn't accused of any offence & wasn't in custody of police at the time of confession. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Certified copy can be produced to prove original sale deed in trial. Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : AIR 2023 SC 4810

Eyewitness account can't be discarded merely because of inconsistencies with medical evidence. Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804

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

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

Last Seen Theory can be invoked only if it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt : Supreme Court acquits murder accused. R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751 : AIR 2023 SC 4301

Extra-judicial confession, a weak piece of evidence, can be relied on if proven to be voluntary, truthful and free of inducement. Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : AIR 2023 SC 3960

FIR is a public document u/s74 Evidence Act; Injured person's statement recorded as FIR can be treated as dying declaration. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664

Section 27 Evidence Act - Disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : AIR 2023 SC 3857

Sanctity of test identification parade doubtful if accused are already shown to witnesses in police station. Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : AIR 2023 SC 3841

Newspaper reports only hearsay evidence, extra-judicial confession has no greater credibility because newspapers reported. Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Trial Courts should make proper preliminary examination of child witnesses before recording their evidence. Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : AIR 2023 SC 3245

Section 27 Evidence Act statement not liable to be rejected merely because it was recorded in a language not known to the accused through translator. Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338 : AIR 2023 SC 2239

Evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value, their statements can't be discarded lightly. Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736

Suggestions made by defence counsel to witnesses in cross examination if incriminating binds accused. Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Test Identification Parade doesn't have much value when the accused is already known to witness. Udayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Circumstantial Evidence - When two views are possible, view favouring accused innocence to be adopted. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239 : (2023) 5 SCC 350 : (2023) 2 SCR 682

Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197 : AIR 2023 SC 1464

Extra-Judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, independent corroboration needed. Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171 : AIR 2023 SC 1323 : (2023) 2 SCR 20

Mere fact of commission of suicide itself not sufficient to raise presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act. Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

'It's quality & not quantity of witnesses which matters': Supreme Court relies on solitary eyewitness testimony to affirm sentence. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110 : AIR 2023 SC 996

Burden of proof on accused to prove plea of insanity is one of preponderance of probability. Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71 : (2023) 5 SCC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 823

Section 27 Evidence Act - Recovery cannot be relied upon when the statement of the accused is not recorded. Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50 : (2023) 1 SCR 335

'Last seen' circumstance cannot be the sole basis for conviction: Supreme Court acquits murder accused. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41 : AIR 2023 SC 488 : (2023) 1 SCR 969

EWS Quota

Candidates cannot claim the EWS quota if certificates are not uploaded in the prescribed format before the cutoff date. (Para 86) Divya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 879

Supreme Court dismisses review petitions filed against judgment upholding EWS Quota. Society for the Rights of Backward Communities v. Janhit Abhiyan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 441

Examination

Supreme Court disapproves of High Courts interfering with examination process by calling for answer sheets & ordering re-evaluation. Chief General Manager, BSNL v. M.J. Paul, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 414

Police SI selection - Supreme Court finds fault with HC for not considering candidates' objections to questions. Sachit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 382 : AIR 2023 SC 2216

Family Law

How to decide if a marriage has irretrievably broken down? The Supreme Court indicates factors. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Fault theory can be diluted by this Court to do 'complete justice' in a particular case, without breaching the self-imposed restraint applicable when this Court exercises power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Apportioning blame and greater fault may not be the rule to resolve and adjudicate the dispute in rare and exceptional matrimonial cases - It would be in the best interest of all, including the individuals involved, to give legality, in the form of formal divorce, to a dead marriage, otherwise the litigation(s), resultant sufferance, misery and torment shall continue. (Para 29) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Illustrative list of factors which are to be considered while granting divorce on this ground. (Para 33) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage a ground of dissolve marriage invoking powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India - This discretionary power is to be exercised to do 'complete justice' to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. (Para 42(iii)) Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Irretrievably broken-down marriage can be dissolved on ground of 'cruelty'. Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353 : AIR 2023 SC 2144

Judges not following guidelines on maintenance: Supreme Court directs to circulate 'Rajnesh v. Neha' Judgment to all judicial officers. Aditi Alias Mithi V. Jitesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 963

Parties cannot directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

The Supreme Court issues directions for sale and attachment of assets to clear arrears of maintenance to woman abandoned by husband. Manmohan Gopal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 921

'Visitation in court premises not in child's interest': Supreme Court allows father to meet child in mall. Adarsh C.B. v. Aswathy Sidharthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 847

Waiting period for mutual consent divorce as per S.13b(2) of Hindu Marriage Act can be waived invoking Article 142. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Family Pension

Child adopted by widow after death of Government employee not entitled to family pension. Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to extend to them some succour. (Para 12) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Family planning

Family planning every citizen's obligation, married couples must take precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancies. x v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 877

Finance Act, 1994

Finance Act, 1994; Sections 65(105) (zi), 65(119), 65(120), 66 - Export of Service Rules, 2005 - Service Tax Rules, 1994 - The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the 3D conversion services provided by the assessee, including services such as 'imparting special effects', 'post production service', 'digital asset management and content service' and 'digital restoration service', will not fall under the ambit of 'video-tape production' under Section 65(120) of Finance Act, 1994. While adjudicating the service tax demand raised on the assessee, the CESTAT found that there was no evidence that the material received by the respondent/ assessee, M/s Prime Focus Ltd, from its clients was recorded in video or that the assessee had, at any time, handled video as media. The Tribunal had thus held that the assessee was entitled for exemption as exports as it had exported services in accordance with Export of Service Rules, 2005 and Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Firecracker

Directions regulating firecrackers apply to all states in the country, not just Delhi. Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 986

Supreme Court rejects firecracker makers' plea to use barium & joined crackers. Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Can't allow barium nitrate in firecrackers merely because the new formulation is 30% less polluting. Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Food

Food safety and standards act will prevail over prevention of food adulteration act to the extent they're inconsistent. Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1067

Foreign Judgments

Reliance of Foreign Judgments - Considering the different position of laws in US and in our country more particularly faced with Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(4) of the Constitution of India under which the right to freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and is not an absolute right and the constitution permits the Parliament to frame the laws taking into consideration the public order and/or the sovereignty of India, without noticing the differences in American Laws and the Indian laws, this Court in the case of Arup Bhuyan (supra) and Raneep (supra) has erred in straightway and directly following the US Supreme Court decisions and that too without adverting to the differences and the position of laws in India. (Para 13) Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 234 : AIR 2023 SC 1685

Foreign Trade

Supreme Court upholds requirement of 'pre-import condition' to claim IGST and GST compensation cess on imports made under 'advance authorization'. Union of India v. Cosmo Films Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) - The bench set aside the judgment of the Gujarat High Court where it had quashed the amending Notifications, i.e., Notification No. 33 / 2015-20 and 79 / 2017-Customs, dated 13.10.2017, by which the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had imposed the 'pre-import' and 'physical export' conditions for availing IGST and Compensation Cess exemption on imports made under 'Advance Authorisation'. Union of India v. Cosmo Films Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) - The Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of a 'pre-import condition' incorporated in the Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020 (HBP) to claim exemption of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and GST Compensation Cess on inputs imported into India for manufacture of export goods, on the basis of 'Advance Authorization'. Union of India v. Cosmo Films Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) - While holding that the concept of 'preimport condition' was not alien, the court observed that paragraph 4.13 (i) of the FTP itself empowered the DGFT to impose 'pre-import conditions' on articles other than those specified in Appendix-4J of the HBP. The bench remarked that the Gujarat High Court had failed to consider the same and had erroneously proceeded on the assumption that only the goods specified in the said Appendix were subject to the 'pre-import condition'. Union of India v. Cosmo Films Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Forest

Forest Protection - Supreme Court allows centre to notify Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as permanent body. In Re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 687

Right of forest inhabitants for claims against eviction to be heard by forest officer not limited to recogonized forest communities. Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507 : AIR 2023 SC 3315

No mining activity within ESZ even if the eco-sensitive zone is more than 1 km from protected forest. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 392

No mining activity within Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) even if ESZ is more than 1 km from protected forest. In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Supreme Court upholds quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Orissa Government to acquire nearly 8000 acres of land for Vedanta University proposed to be established by Anil Agarwal Foundation - Violations of the provisions of the LA Act 1894 - Also notes that procedure was vitiated by favouritism - Not appreciable why the Government offered such an undue favour in favour of one trust / company - No application of mind regarding environmental aspects - Two rivers also sought to be acquired. Anil Agarwal Foundation v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Forest Act, 1927

Forest Act, 1927 - Claims againt eviction - In Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 1986 4 SCC 753, certain Adivasi communities inhabiting the situate land were being evicted from their homes on grounds of the said land being subject to a Section 4 notification under the Forest Act. It was held that the said inhabitants had a right for their claims to be heard by the Forest Officer, and it was the forest officer, who had the power to go into the merits of the case and decide the claims of the inhabitants - whether the relief granted in the Judgment of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh is only applicable to SC/ST/ other backward communities? Banwasi Judgment (Supra), only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if such authority rejects a claim, then the said claim cannot exist against the situate land. This right to be heard, in our opinion, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim. Further, the right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc. If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same. (Para 17-23) Hari Prakash Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Frivolous Litigation

For filing the present frivolous appeal, in our opinion, the Appellants deserve to be burdened with heavy cost. This Court had deprecated the conduct of the litigants in flooding this Court with frivolous litigations, which are choking the dockets as a result of which the matters, which require consideration are delayed. On merits also a similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 207. In the aforesaid case, the plot was allotted in the same Sector-14 (Part), Hissar. Additional price was demanded for the same as is projected in the case in hand. Though the High Court had not granted relief to the allotee, therein however this Court accepted the plea and quashed the demand of additional price from the allottee, interpreting the same condition in the letter of allotment as is in the case in hand. (Para 15 - 17) Haryana Urban Development Authority v Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429 : AIR 2023 SC 2257

In the case in hand, the civil suit was filed on 1.10.2003 by the Respondent challenging the demand of additional price. Judgment of this Court in Sanjay Gera's case was delivered on 22.02.2005. Despite this fact being in knowledge of the Appellants, the suit was contested and the same was decreed on 19.08.2008. The matter did not end here, appeal was preferred by the appellant before the First Appellate Court and on failure even before the High Court and thereafter before this Court. For the aforesaid reasons and wasting the time of the Courts at different levels, we deem it appropriate to burden the Appellants with a cost of ₹1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. In addition, the Respondent having been dragged in unnecessary litigation upto this Court deserves to be awarded cost of ₹50,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the Appellants from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for filing appeal at different levels despite being covered by judgment of this Court. (Para 20 - 22) Haryana Urban Development Authority v Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429 : AIR 2023 SC 2257

Just as bad coins drive out good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous, irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to follow such course. (Para 20) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Supreme Court reprimands HUDA Authority for filing frivolous appeal; imposes cost of Rs. 1 Lakh. Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429 : AIR 2023 SC 2257

The additional amount sought to be recovered from the Respondent was ₹26,880/- to which there was no justification even at the stage of issuance of notice. The suit was decreed on 19.08.2008. The amount spent on litigation would be much more. It is because of impersonal and irresponsible attitude of the officers, who want to put everything to Court and shirk to take decisions. However, still the Appellants had not only filed appeals, resulting in 2 addition to the pendency of cases and also must have spent huge amounts on litigation in the form of fee of the counsels and allied expenses. Besides that, a number of officer(s)/official(s) must have visited the counsel engaged either at Chandigarh, when the matter was taken up in the High Court and thereafter to this Court, when the order was challenged before this Court. Even that amount also needs to be calculated and recovered from the guilty officers who, despite there being judgment of this Court, dealing with the same issue, opined the case to be fit for filing appeals. (Para 23, 24) Haryana Urban Development Authority v Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429 : AIR 2023 SC 2257

The matter should be viewed more seriously when people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego. (Para 20) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu)

General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu); Sections 3(2), 28-A; Schedule I, Part B (Taxation Entry No.61) and Schedule III, Part B (Exemption Entry No.8) - Classification and taxability of 'maize starch' under the TNGST Act for the assessment year, i.e., 1998-99 - If in any statutory rule or statutory notification, two expressions are used - one in general words and the other in special terms – then, as per the rules of interpretation, the special terms are not meant to be included in the general expression. Where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499

Government Officers

Govt Officers should not be summoned to court 'at the drop of a hat'. State of Bihar v. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548

Health

Supreme Court asks Delhi govt. to consider registry's request for additional medical facilities in SC premises. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 23

Higher Judicial Services Special Rules 1961 (Kerala State)

Higher Judicial Services Special Rules 1961 (Kerala State); Rule 2(c)(iii) - The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules. (Para 51) Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Hindu Law

Karta of Hindu undivided family can alienate huf property even if minor has undivided interest in it. N.S. Balaji v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 853

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Sections 8 and 12 - On adoption by a widow, the adopted son or daughter is deemed to be a member of the family of the deceased husband of the widow - Referred to Sawan Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761 and Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343 - The provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956 determine the rights of a son adopted by a Hindu widow only vis-à-vis his adoptive family. (Para 9-10) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) - Self-respect marriages do not require a public solemnisation or declaration. (Para 8) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) - Self-respect marriage - Couples intending to marry may refrain from making a public declaration due to various reasons, such as familial opposition or fear for their safety. In such cases, enforcing a public declaration could put lives at risk and potentially result in forced separation. (Para 8) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 13B(2) - Waiting period for mutual consent divorce can be waived by Supreme Court invoking Article 142 powers - this Court, in view of settlement between the parties, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, without being bound by the procedural requirement to move the second motion. This power should be exercised with care and caution - This Court can also, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, quash and set aside other proceedings and orders, including criminal proceedings. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 13(1)(ia) - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be read as "cruelty" - a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act - Long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. (Para 17, 18) Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353 : AIR 2023 SC 2144

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 16 - Rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property – Held, a child born from a void or voidable marriage is entitled to the parents share in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) governed by Mitakshara law; however, such a child cannot be treated as a coparcener by birth in the HUF. The very concept of a coparcener postulates the acquisition of an interest by birth. If a person born from a void or voidable marriage to whom legitimacy is conferred by sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 16 were to have an interest by birth in a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law, this would certainly affect the rights of others apart from the parents of the child. When an individual falls within the protective ambit of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 16, they would be entitled to rights in or to the absolute property of the parents and no other person. (Para 51) Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 16 - Rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents' share in Hindu joint family property – Children born out of void/voidable marriages are entitled to inherit a share in the property of their deceased parents which would have been allotted to them on a notional partition of the Hindu coparcenary property. However, such children are not entitled to the properties of any coparcener other than their parents. This ruling is applicable only to Hindu joint family properties governed by Hindu Mitakshara law. (Para 55) Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 29 (2) - A Hindu marriage can be dissolved through a customary divorce deed, provided the existence of such a customary right is established. (Para 6) Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 848

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Partition Suit - Effect of 2005 amendment to pending partition suit - As the law governing the parties has been amended before the conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the party benefitted by such amendment (like the two daughters in the case on hand) can make a request to the Trial Court to take cognizance of the Amendment and give effect to the same. (Para 80) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Hindu Succession Act 1956 - the institution of a suit for partition by a member of a joint family is a clear intimation of his intention to separate, and there was consequential severance of the status of jointness - In case during the pendency of partition suit or during the period between the passing of preliminary decree and final decree in the partition suit, any legislative amendment or any subsequent event takes place which results in enlargement or diminution of the shares of the parties or alteration of their rights, whether such legislative amendment or subsequent event can be into consideration and given effect to while passing final decree in the partition suit - Even though filing of partition suit brings about severance of status of jointness, such legislative amendment or subsequent event will have to be taken into consideration and given effect to in passing the final decree in the partition suit - This is because, the partition suit can be regarded as fully and completely decided only when the final decree is passed. It is by a final decree that partition of property of joint Hindu Family takes place by metes and bounds. (Para 73(C)) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Hindu Succession Act, 1955; Section 6 - In order to ascertain the shares of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property and Explanation 1 to Section 6 provides a fictional expedient, namely, that his share is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death - Once that assumption has been made for the purpose of ascertaining the share of the deceased, one cannot go back on the assumption and ascertain the shares of the heirs without reference to it, and all the consequences which flow from a real partition have to be logically worked out, which means that the shares of the heirs must be ascertained on the basis that they had separated from one another and had received a share in the partition which had taken place during the life-time of the deceased. In effect, the heir will get his or her share in the interest which the deceased had in the coparcenary property at the time of his death, in addition to the share which he or she received or must be deemed to have received in the notional partition. (Para 11-12) Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740

Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14 - Possession of property necessary for woman to claim rights under section 14. (Para 4) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720

Human Organs

Supreme Court allows man to donate liver to 3-year-old cousin who is an overseas citizen of India; says order won't be treated as precedent. Rajveer Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 973

Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017

Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 - Issued directions to the Central and State Governments to ensure the effective implementation of the HIV Act. (Para 93) CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826

Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017; Section 34 - All courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies in the country should prioritize cases relating to HIV-infected persons for early disposal. Steps should be taken to maintain the anonymity of HIV-infected individuals. (Para 93 (12)) Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826

Hysterectomy

Take stringent action against hospitals for unnecessary or forced hysterectomies; follow the union's guidelines. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310

IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016

IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - Regulation 30 - NCLT as well as NCLAT were right in holding that the possession of the Corporate Debtor, of the property needs to be protected. This is why a direction under Regulation 30 had been issued to the local district administration. (Para 50) Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193 : (2023) 7 SCC 227

Income Tax Act 1961

Income Tax Act 1961 - Chapter XIVB is a complete code in itself providing for self-contained machinery for assessment of undisclosed income for the block period of 10 years or 6 years as the case may be- for assessment of undisclosed income for the block period, the normal assessment proceedings under Section 140 of the Income Tax Act would not be applicable. (Para 10.6) K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54 : AIR 2023 SC 431 : (2023) 4 SCC 274 : (2023) 1 SCR 689

Income Tax Act 1961 - Revenue justified in levying interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act for late filing of the return for the block period even in absence of any notice under Section 158BC of the Act and for the period prior to 01.06.1999. (Paras 10.3, 10.7) K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54 : AIR 2023 SC 431 : (2023) 4 SCC 274 : (2023) 1 SCR 689

Income Tax Act 1961- the date of the Panchnama last drawn can be said to be the relevant date and can be said to be the starting point of limitation of two years for completing the block assessment proceedings. Anil Minda v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963; Rule 11 - Age of retirement of the Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) - In terms of the provisions, a member of ITAT to continue in the post till the age of 62 years. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The amendment brought to Section 153C of the Act, 1961 vide Finance Act, 2015 shall be applicable to searches conducted under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 before 01.06.2015, i.e., the date of the amendment. (Para 11) Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274 : AIR 2023 SC 1922 : (2023) 2 SCR 756

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The Supreme Court grants relief to ITAT member whose appointment was delayed for not filing income tax returns and allowed to continue in the post till the age of 62 years as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961. Although she had applied in pursuance of a notification issued in 2013, she was given appointment only in 2018, as there was a dispute regarding non-filing of income tax returns by her with respect to the relevant assessment year (2010-11). In June 2017, the Calcutta High Court had granted her relief by holding that she cannot be excluded merely on the ground that she had not filed income tax returns. In the meantime, the Centre had brought in new rules for appointment to Tribunals, namely Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017. The letter of appointment was issued to her in terms of the 2017 Rules, fixing her term as three years. The bench held that the right of the applicant to appointment had been crystallized even before the 2017 Rules. Therefore, the appointment of the applicant would be governed by the position as it existed prior to the 2017 Rules. In other words, her tenure shall be extended until she attains the age of 62 years. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Income Tax Act, 1961 - The Supreme Court has upheld the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at New Delhi to tax the income earned by the assessees incorporated under the Registration of Companies (Sikkim) Act, 1961, for the assessment years prior to the date the Income Tax Act, 1961 was extended to the State of Sikkim. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Income Tax Act, 1961; Chapter X - Any determination of the arm's length price under Chapter X of the Act de hors the relevant guidelines stipulated under the Act and the Rules, can be considered as perverse, which may be considered as a substantial question of law. Thus, in each case, the High Court should examine whether the guidelines laid down in the Act and the Rules are followed while determining the arm's length price. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10(26AAA) - Sikkim Subject Rules, 1961 - Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 - All Indians/old Indian settlers, who have permanently settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975, irrespective of whether his/her name is recorded in the register maintained under the Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 read with Sikkim Subject Rules, 1961 or not, are entitled to the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act. (Para 17) Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 80 HHC - Gain from foreign exchange fluctuations cannot be claimed as deduction. Shah Originals v. Commissioner of Income Tax-24, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 80 IA - For the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IA, the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies power to the consumers has to be taken as the market value of electricity. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1048

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 90 - Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) cannot be given effect to by a court, authority or a tribunal unless it has been notified by the Central Government. Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) New Delhi v. Nestle, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 153A - Block assessment under Section 153A is linked with the search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A, respectively. Further, the object of assessment under Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search/requisition. Therefore, the jurisdiction of AO to make assessment is confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition. Income Tax Act, 1961 - Only in cases where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminating material in search/ requisition, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period, even in case of completed/unabated assessment. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 153A - No additions can be made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132 A, in respect of completed / unabated assessments. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 153C - The object and purpose of Section 153C is to address the persons other than the searched person - 2015 amendment was necessitated because of the narrow interpretation given to "belong/belongs" in Section 153C by the Delhi High Court in Pepsico Holdings which led to a situation where, though incriminating material pertaining to a third party / person was found during search proceedings under Section 132, the Revenue could not proceed against such a third party. (Para 10.8) Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274 : AIR 2023 SC 1922 : (2023) 2 SCR 756

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 260A - High Court is not precluded from considering the determination of the arm's length price determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in exercise of its powers under Section 260A - there cannot be any absolute proposition of law that in all cases where the Tribunal has determined the arm's length price the same is final and cannot be the subject matter of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 263 - Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise revision powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act over the erroneous orders of the Assessing Officer which cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue - If due to an erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paville Projects Pvt Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 282 : AIR 2023 SC 1950

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 271C - The Supreme Court has ruled that no penalty is leviable under Section 271C on the mere delay in remittance of TDS after the same has been deducted by the assessee. The Court has held that the relevant words used in Section 271C(1)(a) are “fails to deduct”, and the same does not speak about belated remittance of the TDS - The Court ruled that the words “fails to deduct” occurring in Section 271C(1)(a) cannot be read as “failure to deposit/ pay the tax deducted”, while adding that the consequences of non-payment/belated remittance of the TDS are specifically provided by the Parliament under Sections 201(1A) and 276B of the Income Tax Act - The Court thus set aside the Kerala High Court's order where it had upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271C for belated remittance of TDS. US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 285 : (2023) 8 SCC 24

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 6(3) - Since the control and management of the affairs of the assessee companies was with its auditor in New Delhi, the Income Tax Act, 1961 was applicable to them. Thus, the assesses who were incorporated under the company law of Sikkim, were resident Indian companies, and the income accrued to them/ earned by them in India for the assessment years prior to 1st April 1990, was taxable under the Income Tax Act. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Bitumen cannot be treated as a 'valuable article' under Section 69A. For an 'article' to be 'valuable', even in small quantity it must be 'worth a good price' or 'worth a great deal of money', and it is not sufficient if it has some 'value'. Considering the price of one kilogram of bitumen, 'bitumen' cannot be treated as a 'valuable article'. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Principle of Ejusdem Generis - the preceding words in Section 69A - such as money, bullion, and jewellery- would suggest that the phrase 'other valuable article' would justify inclusion of only high value goods. The ownership of the goods did not pass to the assessee, who was a mere carrier of goods and whose possession of bitumen began as a bailee. Thus, the assessee could not be said to be the 'owner' of bitumen so as to attract Section 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 69A - Thief cannot be recognised as the owner of the property within the meaning of Section 69A. For Section 69A to apply, it is indispensable that the Assessing Officer must find that the articles/ goods enumerated and covered under Section 69A, are owned by the assessee. A person may own contraband or prohibited articles and still be within the embrace of Section 69A. However, without finding ownership, or in a case where it is obvious that someone else is the owner, a person who is found to be in illegal possession of goods cannot be said to be the owner under Section 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 80-IB - Assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80- IB of the Act on the amount received / profit derived from the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) and the Duty Drawback Schemes. The bench held that the profit from the DEPB and the Duty Drawback claims cannot be said to be an income “derived from” the industrial undertaking. The court added that even otherwise, such an income is chargeable to tax as per Sections 28(iiid) and (iiie) of the Income Tax Act. Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 147, 148 - In case of completed/ unabated assessment, if no incriminating material is found during the search, the only remedy available to the revenue department would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the specified conditions. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 148 and 148A - Writ petition can be entertained to examine if conditions for issuance of notice under Section 148 have been satisfied. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Income Tax Act, 1961 - If an Indian Entity's Establishment is operating in Oman and has a 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) status under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), then the dividend income received by the Indian Entity from such Establishment would not be taxable under Indian Taxation laws. (Para 16 - 18) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 245C, 245D, 245H, 271 (1)(c) - Section 245H of the Act, which empowers the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty to the assessee if he has co-operated with the Settlement Commission and has made “full and true disclosure of his income”, cannot be saddled with an artificial requirement that the material “disclosed” by the assessee before the Commission must be something apart from what was “discovered” by the Assessing Officer. (Para 7) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 822

Income Tax Act 1961 - Settlement Commission - there is a real object and purpose of setting up of the Settlement Commission as an Assessee, who is given an opportunity to disclose the undisclosed income in order to seek benefit in the form of immunity from penalty and prosecution. Shree Nilkanth Developers v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 648

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 2 (24) - Interest income earned on fixed deposits made in the banks by Clubs has to be treated like any other income from other sources within the meaning of Section 2(24). The principle of mutuality would not apply to interest income earned on fixed deposits made by Clubs in the banks irrespective of whether the banks are corporate members of the club or not. Dismissed the plea that the judgement in Bangalore Club vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 5 SCC 509 is not a binding precedent and therefore the same calls for reconsideration. (Para 43) Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Income Tax Act, 1961; Sections 132, 132A, 147, 148, 153A - In view of the judgment of the Supreme court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., [(2023) SCC Online SC 481], an Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make additions to assessee's income in respect of completed / unabated assessments if no incriminating material has been found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, in terms of the said judgment, the completed / unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned under the said provisions - Therefore, AO's powers under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act were saved in terms of Supreme Court's judgment in Abhisar Buildwell (2023). Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532

Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 153C allows the revenue department to proceed against a party other than the person who is being searched, if incriminating articles against the "other person" is found during the search. So, if any books of accounts or documents which belonged a person other than the person who is being searched is discovered during the search proceedings, Section 153C enabled the department to proceed against the "other person" if the materials indicated undisclosed income or assets. (Para 7) Commissioner of Income Tax 14 v. Jasjit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 878

Income Tax Act 1961 - Under Section 153C, a third party would only have to furnish income tax returns of preceding six years, starting from the date when the Assessing Officer assigns the third party's documents to the concerned Assessing Officer and not from the date of the original search. Section 153C does not contemplate calculation of six years period from date of search and seizure, as any delay caused by Assessing Officer in assigning documents to concerned Assessing Officer would obligate the third party to preserve the records of more than six preceding years. (Para 10) Commissioner of Income Tax 14 v. Jasjit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 878

Information

RTI Act will become 'dead letter': Supreme Court directs States, Union to fill vacancies in Information Commissions. Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 942

'Ensure public authorities follow the mandate of Section 4 RTI Act': Supreme Court directs Central / State Information Commissioners. Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 665 : AIR 2023 SC 4001

Temporary Injunction

Grant of Temporary Injunction - Principles and precedents discussed. (Para 21) Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugham, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133 : AIR 2023 SC 1253

Import

CTO for enhanced production capacity issued after SC's order fixing total import limit; importer not entitled to proportionate increase in import quota. Sanvira Industries v. Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : AIR 2023 SC 3091

Industrial Disputes

'After allowing workmen to work for 2 decades, management cannot challenge the award': Supreme Court allows appeal of FCI workers. FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491 : AIR 2023 SC 3293 : (2023) 8 SCC 116

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Advocate cannot claim the right of legal representation - No ground to revisit the well settled position of law which has prevailed for almost half a century. ThyssenKrupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 868

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Sections 10(1)(d), 17B and 25F - Having allowed the workmen to put in regular service to its own benefit for over two decades, the management can no longer claim an indefeasible right to continue with and canvass its challenge to the Award, merely because it made its compliance with the Award conditional long ago. In the light of their absorption in regular service, these workmen, who may have otherwise opted for employment opportunities elsewhere, altered their position and remained with the FCI. Having placed them in that position, it is no longer open to the management of FCI to seek to turn back the clock. (Para 16) FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S.33C(2) - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S.6H - The appellant–workman claimed unlawful termination of his employment (sometime in 1979) and approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed his reinstatement and also directed payment of back wages at the rate of ₹8000/-. The Respondent, U.P. Power Corporation, filed a writ petition which was dismissed after the High Court had kept it pending for 11 long years, on 03.01.2006. The appellant thereafter represented to the employer on several occasions, but unsuccessfully. Ultimately, he approached the Labour Court yet again for calculation of his dues. In this second round, the Labour Court by order dated 31.08.2020 calculated back wages and directed payment of ₹8000/- per month. By the impugned order of the High Court those directions were set aside. Held, the High Court could not have done what it in fact did, i.e., to set aside the second order of the Labour Court which merely calculated the amounts due and made consequential directions. The adjudication between the parties having crystallized with the award dated 22.12.1995, which was confirmed by the High Court, there was no occasion for any intervention, much less by the High Court. In these circumstances, the second award of the Labour Court is hereby restored. The respondent–U.P. Power Corporation Limited is hereby directed to pay to the appellant the sum indicated, i.e., ₹10,54,311/-, with interest @ 11% p.a. calculable from 21.09.2006 and shall also pay ₹2,00,000/- as costs. The appeal is allowed. (Para 3, 6) Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016

Admitting claims after a resolution plan has been accepted by COC would make CIRP an endless process. RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : AIR 2023 SC 4197

Application under Section 12A for withdrawal of CIRP is maintainable prior to the Constitution of CoC. Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 250

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

Cut-off date to determine the resolution applicant's eligibility under Section 240A is the date of submitting the resolution plan. Hari Babu Thota, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

Delay in filing CIRP application condonable on sufficient reasons. Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9 : AIR 2023 SC 288 : (2023) 3 SCC 229

Date of order pronouncement & time taken to provide certified copy excluded from limitation period for appeal to NCLAT. Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

EPFO employees must comply with the IBC timeline for filing claims; default officers must face action. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734

For rejection of a resolution plan under Section 31(2), NCLT must pass a reasoned order. Ramkrishna Forgings v. Ravindra Loonkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

Homebuyers who secure RERA decrees can't be treated differently from other financial creditors under IBC. Vishal Chelani v. Debashis Nanda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 894

IBC overrides electricity act; dues to secured creditors at higher footing than electricity dues. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534 : AIR 2023 SC 3501 : 2023) 10 SCC 60

IBC resolution plan can't ignore Government dues : Supreme Court dismisses review petitions against 'rainbow papers'. Sanjay Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939 : AIR 2023 SC 5636

Ineligibility of resolution applicant as per S.164(2)(b) Companies Act can't be presumed unless competent authority declares disqualification. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

NCLAT can 'recall' its judgment, can't 'review' them: Supreme Court affirms NCLAT ruling. Union Bank of India v. Financial Creditors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589

No casual interference with commercial wisdom of CoC : Supreme Court sets aside NCLT direction to reevaluate corporate debtor's assets. Ramkrishna Forgings v. Ravindra Loonkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

No modified resolution plan can be directly placed before NCLT without being finally approved by the CoC. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Once a resolution plan is approved, no modifications are permissible. SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231 : (2023) 7 SCC 295

Principle of commercial wisdom not validate a decision taken by CoC in contravention of law. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Properties sold in auction sale before declaration of moratorium can't be treated as liquidation asset. Haldiram Incorporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1029

Reliance Home Finance Insolvency: Supreme Court allows debenture holders to be covered under resolution plan of Authum Investments. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 173 : AIR 2023 SC 1459

Remedies against third-parties not available under Section 66 of IBC. Glukrich Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Resolution professional entitled to take control of corporate debtor's rights in assets licensed to third parties. Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193 : (2023) 7 SCC 227

Sabka Vishwas Scheme: Supreme Court grants relief to company which missed deadline due to IBC moratorium. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15 : AIR 2023 SC 276 : (2023) 3 SCC 220

Section 240A IBC - Even if MSME registration obtained post commencement of CIRP, the promoter is eligible to submit a resolution plan. Hari Babu Thota, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

Section 9 petition not to be dismissed if few invoices are time barred but remaining invoices are not. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. v K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 270

Supertech Insolvency: Supreme Court approves 'project wise resolution' plan. Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Arora, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 436 : AIR 2023 SC 2273

Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of IBC provisions relating to personal guarantors; says adjudicatory role can't be read into Section 97. Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Tax & Customs dues to be paid as per waterfall mechanism under Section 53. Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Rajendra Prasad Tak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 952

The Code was specifically introduced by Parliament for ensuring quick and time-bound resolution of insolvency of corporate entities in financial trouble, by first attempting to revive the Corporate Debtor, failure whereof would entail liquidation of the Corporate Debtor's assets, and no unnecessary impediment should be created to delay or derail the CIRP. (Para 29) Ramkrishna Forgings v. Ravindra Loonkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1007

When matter is heard on a particular date but order pronounced later, NCLT not to affix date of hearing on order. Sanjay Pandurang Kalate v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1060

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2021 - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - A company could not avail benefit of the Sabka Vishwas scheme as it was under moratorium under IBC - The Courts are meant to do justice and cannot compel a person to do something which was impossible for him to do - Directed that the payment of amount already deposited by the company be appropriated towards settlement dues under “Sabka Vishwas Scheme 2019 and the company be issued discharge certificate. Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15 : AIR 2023 SC 276 : (2023) 3 SCC 220

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 31 - After passing of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of IBC by the Adjudicating Authority and in the light of Section 32A of IBC, the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act will stand terminated only in relation to the Corporate Debtor if the same is taken over by a new management. (Para 86) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 31 - Process under the IBC whether under Section 31 or Sections 38 to 41 cannot extinguish criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act 1881 against former directors of the corporate debtor. (Para 18) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 53 - Waterfall mechanism - Complete code - The waterfall mechanism is based on a structured mathematical formula, and the hierarchy is created in terms of payment of debts in order of priority with several qualifications, striking down any one of the provisions or rearranging the hierarchy in the waterfall mechanism may lead to several trips and disrupt the working of the equilibrium as a whole and stasis, resulting in instability. Every change in the waterfall mechanism is bound to lead to cascading effects on the balance of rights and interests of the secured creditors, operational creditors and even the Central and State Government. (Para 16) Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - A resolution applicant cannot be rendered ineligible to submit a resolution plan under the IBC, by assuming his/her disqualification under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, unless a categorical order disqualifying him/her to act as a director of any company is passed by the competent authority. There is no concept of 'deemed disqualification' under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Commissioner and employees of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) must ensure that they comply with the timelines under the IBC. In case of failure to comply with the timelines, action must be taken against erring employees. Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Fanendra Harakchand Munot, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 734

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - if a modified resolution plan, carrying however minor modification/revision, is not finally approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC), then presentation of such modified plan before the Adjudicating Authority for approval is an incurable material irregularity. No modified resolution plan can be placed directly before the NCLT, without being finally approved by the CoC. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Rules, 2016 - The Supreme Court has upheld the ruling of NCLAT fivemember bench, wherein it was held that NCLAT is empowered to recall its judgment but not to review them. The Supreme Court has affirmed the NCLAT's ruling and dismissed an appeal filed against the order. Union Bank of India v. Financial Creditors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 589

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - The question of election between the fora for enforcement of debt under the 1993 Act and initiation of CIRP under the IBC arises only after a recovery certificate is issued. The reliefs under the two statutes are different and once CIRP results in declaration of moratorium, the enforcement mechanism under the 1993 Act or the SARFAESI Act gets suspended. In such circumstances, after issue of recovery certificate, the financial creditor ought to have option for enforcing recovery through a new forum instead of sticking on to the mechanism through which recovery certificate was issued. (Para 11) Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - The enforcement mechanism for a recovery certificate is an independent course, which a financial creditor may opt for realisation of its dues crystalised under the 1993 Act, instead of chasing the mechanism under the 1993 Act. The IBC itself is not really a debt recovery mechanism but a mechanism for revival of a company fallen in debt, but the procedure envisaged in the IBC substantially relates to ensuring recovery of debts in the process of applying such mechanism. (Para 11) Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2018, is binding upon the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). (Para 34) Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Right of the Financial Creditor to invoke the mechanism under the IBC after issue of recovery certificate stood acknowledged as a valid legal course. (Para 11) Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 53 - the distribution of the assets shall have to be made as per Section 53 of the IBC subject to Section 36(4) of the IBC, in case of liquidation of company under IBC - Exclusion of Sections 326 and 327 of Companies Act 2013 in the event of liquidation of company as per IBC not arbitrary. (Para 18) Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) - Once the Resolution Plan stands approved, no alterations/modifications are permissible. It is either to be approved or disapproved, but any modification after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC, based on its commercial wisdom, is not open for judicial review unless it is found to be not in conformity with the mandate of the IBC Code. (Para 22) SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v. Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231 : (2023) 7 SCC 295

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The 'Doctrine of Election' cannot be applied to prevent a Financial Creditor from approaching the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against a Corporate Debtor. (Para 11) Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - the development rights created in favour of the Corporate Debtor constitute “property” within the meaning of the expression under Section 3(27) of IBC -Since the expression “asset” in common parlance denotes “property of any kind”, the bundle of rights that the Corporate Debtor has over the property in question would constitute “asset” within the meaning of Section 18(f) and Section 25(2)(a) of IBC- these rights and interests in the immovable property are definitely liable to be included by the Resolution Professional in the Information Memorandum and the Resolution Professional is duty bound under Section 25(2)(a) to take custody and control of the same. (Para 37) Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193 : (2023) 7 SCC 227

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The exclusion of assets owned by a thirdparty, but in the possession of the Corporate Debtor held under contractual arrangements, from the definition of the expression “assets”, is limited to Section 18. In other words, the Explanation under Section 18 does not extend to Section 25. Victory Iron Works Ltd. v. Jitendra Lohia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 193 : (2023) 7 SCC 227

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The IBC is a significant prong in economic reforms. It has radically reshaped the law relating to insolvency and bankruptcy. The manner in which the law is administered will have to keep pace with technology. Both the Union government in its rule making capacity and the administrative heads of tribunals must ensure a seamless transition to working in the electronic mode. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Chairperson of the NCLAT and to the Secretaries to the Union Government respectively in the Ministries of (i) Finance; (ii) Corporate Affairs; and (iii) Law and Justice for ensuring compliance and remedial steps. (Para 30, 31) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - the principle of 'Commercial Wisdom' of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) cannot brush aside the shortcomings of the CoC in cases where decision making was done in contravention to a law which is in force for the time being. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - the Resolution Plan could not have been approved by the NCLT on twin reasons, (i) ineligibility of Successful Resolution Applicant in view of Section 88 of the Indian Trust Act; and (ii) the failure of Resolution Applicant to place the revised resolution plan before the CoC prior to seeking approval of the NCLT. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Supreme Court has declined to grant any interim relief in respect of order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) directing 'project wise insolvency resolution process' of Supertech Ltd.'s Eco Village-II project. The Bench has observed that constituting Committee of Creditors (CoC) for all the projects of Supertech Limited would affect the ongoing projects and cause hardship to the homebuyers. The Bench has directed that during the pendency of the appeal, any process beyond voting on the Resolution Plan should not be undertaken without specific orders of the Supreme Court in respect to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Eco Village-II project. Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Arora, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 436 : AIR 2023 SC 2273

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - There is no and there cannot be any concept of post facto approval of any resolution plan by CoC which had not been placed before it prior to the filing before the Adjudicating Authority. The requirement of CIRP Regulations, particularly of placing the resolution plan in its final form before the CoC, has to be scrupulously complied with. No alteration or modification in the process could be countenanced. We say so for the specific reason concerning law that if the process as adopted in the present matter is approved, the very scheme of the Code and CIRP regulations would be left open-ended and would be capable of inviting arbitrariness at any level. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

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

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 12A - Section 12A does not debar entertaining applications for withdrawal even before constitution of CoC; application cannot be kept pending for constitution of CoC. (Para 35) Abhishek Singh v. Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 238 - Electricity Act, 2003; Sections 173, 174 - Section 238 of the IBC overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 despite the latter containing two specific provisions which open with non-obstante clauses (i.e., Section 173 and 174) - The provisions of the IBC which treat the dues payable to secured creditors at a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State Government. (Para 49-53) Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 238 - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 238 of the IBC contains a non obstante clause which gives overriding effect to its provisions. Consequently, its provisions acquire primacy, and cannot be read as subordinate to the RERA Act. (Para 8) Vishal Chelani v. Debashis Nanda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 894

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 240A - Cut-Off date to determine resolution applicant's eligibility under Section 240A is date of submitting resolution plan. Hari Babu Thota, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 240A - Even if MSME registration obtained post commencement of CIRP, promoter eligible to submit resolution plan. Hari Babu Thota, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1051

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 5 (7) & (8) - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Section 18 - Homebuyers cannot be treated differently from other "financial creditors" under the IBC just because they have secured orders from the authority under the RERA. (Para 8) Vishal Chelani v. Debashis Nanda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 894

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 53 - Not all dues owed under statute are treated as 'government' dues - Dues payable to statutory corporations which do not fall within the description “amounts due to the central or state government” such as for instance amounts payable to corporations created by statutes which have distinct juristic entity but whose dues do not constitute government dues payable or those payable into the respective Consolidated Funds stand on a different footing. Such corporations may be operational creditors or financial creditors or secured creditors depending on the nature of the transactions entered into by them with the corporate debtor. On the other hand, dues payable or requiring to be credited to the Treasury, such as tax, tariffs, etc. which broadly fall within the ambit of Article 265 of the Constitution are 'government dues' and therefore covered by Section 53(1)(f) of the IBC. (Para 46) Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 53 - The 'waterfall mechanism' - The priority of claims: Firstly, insolvency resolution process costs and the liquidation costs; Secondly, workmen's dues for the period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date and debts owed to a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security; Thirdly, wages and any unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen for the period of 12 months preceding the liquidation commencement date; Fourthly, financial debts owed to unsecured creditors; Fifthly, any amount due to the central government and the state government and debts owed to a secured creditor for any amount unpaid following the enforcement of security interest; Sixthly, any remaining debts and dues; Seventhly, preference shareholders; and Eighthly equity shareholders or partners. This hierarchy or order of priority thus accords government debts [clause (e)] and operational debts [clause (f)] lower priority than dues owed to unsecured financial creditors. (Para 27) Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 53 - The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority. If a resolution plan ignores statutory demands payable to any state government or legal authority, it would be bound to reject the resolution plan. (Para 25, 26) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 939 : AIR 2023 SC 5636

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 61(2) - Time taken by Tribunal to provide certified copy of order ought to be excluded from computation of limitation. (Para 28) Limitation Act, 1963; Section 12 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 238A - the date on which the order was pronounced must be excluded while computing limitation for filing of appeal against such order. The NCLAT erred in not excluding date of pronouncement of order while computing limitation. (Para 23) Sanket Kumar Agarwal v. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 66 - the remedy against third party is not available under Section 66 of IBC, and in such circumstances, it is for the Resolution Professional or the successful resolution applicant to take such civil remedies against third party for recovery of dues payable to corporate debtor, and the civil remedies which may be available in law are independent of the said Section. (Para 10) Glukrich Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 464

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 and Article 137 - The limitation period for initiating CIRP under Section 9, IBC is to be reckoned from the date of default, as opposed to the date of commencement of IBC and the period prescribed therefor, is three years as provided by Article 137 - The same would commence from the date of default and is extendable only by application of Section 5 Limitation Act - it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim for condonation of the delay when once the proceeding concerned is found filed beyond the period of limitation. (Para 23-24) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9 : AIR 2023 SC 288 : (2023) 3 SCC 229

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Pre-Existing Dispute - What is to be looked into is the existence or otherwise of a dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceedings prior to the receipt of demand notice or invoice, as the case may be. (Para 34-38) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9: AIR 2023 SC 288 : (2023) 3 SCC 229

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - When a petition under Section 9 of IBC is filed based on several invoices and some of the invoices are time barred, then NCLT must consider the remaining invoices which are within limitation and whether they cross the minimum threshold of Rs. 1 Crore. The Section 9 petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground that some of the invoices are time barred. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. v K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 270

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 95 to 100 - It cannot read an adjudicatory role into these provisions and that the entire process of timelines would be rendered negatory if the role of adjudicator is changed. For the Court to change the adjudicatory role envisaged under these provisions would amount to "rewriting the legislative functions. The Resolution Profession is just making a recommendatory report and it is not binding and the true adjudicating function commences at Section 100 after the submission of the report. Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 95 to 100 - The role of adjudicating authority commences under Part III after the submission of the recommendation report of Resolution Professional (RP). This is based on intelligible differentia of insolvency of corporates and insolvency of individuals and partnership firms. Though the ultimate report of RP is only recommendatory, the legislature has ensured that the recommendation is made after taking into account the information and explanation by the debtor. Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 95 to 100 - These provisions cannot be held as unconstitutional for not affording an opportunity of hearing to the personal guarantors before the insolvency petition filed by creditors is admitted against them and the moratorium is automatically applied against them as soon as the insolvency petition is filed. The statute (IBC) does not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness to violate Art 14 of the Constitution. Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1010

Insurance

BMW car damage - Supreme Court refuses claim for replacement; says insured can't claim anything more than insurance policy coverage. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukul Aggarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

'Breach of condition must be fundamental to deny insurance claim altogether': Supreme Court directs insurer to award 75% claim in vehicle theft case. Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Fire Insurance - Exact cause of fire immaterial if insured was not responsible for initiating fire. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mudit Roadways, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

Insurance companies must deal in a bonafide & fair manner; should not just care for its own profits. Isnar Aqua Farms v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 615 : AIR 2023 SC 3973

Insurance company is not liable if claimant was travelling in a trailer which was not insured even if the tractor was insured. Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725

Insurance company must give cogent reasons for not accepting the surveyor's report. (Para 17) National Insurance Company Ltd.v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : AIR 2023 SC 3064

Insurance Contract - Fire and Special Perils policy - Supreme Court directs insurer to pay reinstatement value of the goods damaged and not the depreciated value, because as per the policy, in case the insurance company is unable to reinstate or repair because of some municipal or other regulations, it shall be liable to pay such sum as would be requisite to reinstate or repair such property. Oswal Plastic Industries v. Manager, Legal Dept., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 34 : AIR 2023 SC 412 : (2023) 1 SCR 985

Insurance coverage for accidental death - proximate cause necessary; Supreme Court denies claim for sunstroke death during election duty. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90 : AIR 2023 SC 868 : (2023) 2 SCR 312

Insurance Law - Accidental death - Death due to sun stroke during election duty will not come under the scope of the clause "death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violent and any other visible means"- proximate causal relationship between the accident and the body injury is a necessity- plain reading of the clauses is the guiding principle to interpret insurance contracts. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90 : 2023 ACJ 401 : AIR 2023 SC 868 : (2023) 6 SCC 441 : (2023) 2 SCR 312

Insurance Law - Court elucidates the principles of interpretation. (Paras 26, 27) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90 : 2023 ACJ 401 : AIR 2023 SC 868 : (2023) 6 SCC 441 : (2023) 2 SCR 312

LIC not entitled to levy fee for endorsing transfer or assignment of a policy. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 759

Marine Insurance - If a ship is sent to sea in an unworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss due to unseaworthiness. Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640 : AIR 2023 SC 4640 :: (2023) 9 SCC 407

Negligence by Doctor - In a case of negligence committed by Doctor, the Insurance Company which covered the Doctor would have to reimburse the compensation to the Complainant to the extent of its liability under the Policy, as against the Doctor concerned. Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Prem Prakash Rajagaria, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Negligence by doctor - Insurer liable to reimburse compensation to complainant to the extent of its liability under the policy. Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan v. Prem Prakash Rajagaria, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 344

The Supreme Court directs insurer to pay reinstatement value of goods damaged in fire instead of depreciated value. Oswal Plastic Industries v. Manager, Legal Dept., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 34 : AIR 2023 SC 412 : (2023) 1 SCR 985

Theft coverage denied saying gold wasn't kept in 'locked safe' : Supreme Court says insurance claim can't be rejected based on ambiguous term. Mehta Jewellers v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 859

Wherever an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview of such clause. In case of ambiguity, the contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of the insured. (Para 14) National Insurance Company Ltd.v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 445 : AIR 2023 SC 3064

Insurance Act, 1938

Insurance Act, 1938; Section 38 - Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is not entitled to levy a service charge or fee for endorsing the assignment or transfer of a policy. (Para 9) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dravya Finance Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 759

Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The Supreme Court has recalled its judgment dated 10 April 2023, where the Court had ruled that Duty Free Shops situated in the arrival or departure terminals of Airports are outside the customs frontiers of India and therefore, they cannot be saddled with any indirect taxes like the Service Tax. While allowing the review plea filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise against the Supreme Court's verdict in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd [Civil Appeal Diary No. 24336/2022 dated 10.04.2023], the court observed that while hearing the appeal, none of the submissions of the Union of India had been recorded or considered, and that the judgment only adverts to the submissions of the respondent- assessee. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai East v. Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Uttar Pradesh)

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Uttar Pradesh); Section 16-FF(3) - the process of appointment of Teachers under the Act is not concluded without obtaining the mandatory approval of the District Inspector of Schools (“DIOS”). There is no vested right of the candidate to be appointed merely because the selection process has been completed. Section 16-FF(3) mandates the approval by the DIOS for appointment as the Head of Institution or Teacher. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Uttar Pradesh); Section 16-FF(3) - the Act does not contemplate 'deemed appointment' of a candidate if the District Inspector of Schools (“DIOS”) does not approve the proposal for appointment of the candidate within 15 days period, as given under Regulation 18. The selection process of the candidate concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted. Section 16-FF(3) of the Act itself makes approval by DIOS mandatory for appointment to the post of teacher. Therefore, a Regulation made under the said Act could not have provided for a 'deemed appointment'. Subordinate legislation cannot transcend the prescription of a statutory provision. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (Uttar Pradesh); Section 16-FF(3) - the vacancies to the teaching posts in Uttar Pradesh which arose prior to amendment of Regulation 17 are to be governed by amended rules. The amendment to Regulation 17 was notified on 12.03.2018 and it now prescribes a written examination for the selection of Teachers in minority institutions. It is a settled principle of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of existing Rules, which implies Rules in force as on the date of consideration. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rachna Hills, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Interpretation of Statues

Statutory provision can't be declared ultra vires without a specific challenge in pleadings. Union of India v. Manjurani Routray, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 745 : AIR 2023 SC 4077 : (2023) 9 SCC 144

Doctrine of harmonious construction - ambiguous clauses in deed must be interpreted consistent with other clauses & with intent of parties. Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711 : AIR 2023 SC 4316

When can a provision be held to be clarificatory with retrospective effect? the Supreme Court explains. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 468 : AIR 2023 SC 2645

Interstate Water Dispute

Cauvery river dispute - Supreme Court refuses to interfere with CWRC Order directing Karnataka to release 5000 cusecs to Tamil Nadu. State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 838

Judgment

Legislature can't directly overrule judgment, but law can be made to alter the basis of court verdict. NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756 : AIR 2023 SC 4457

High Courts cannot refuse to follow SC judgment on ground of review/reference pending against it; in case of conflicting judgments, follow earlier one. Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Supreme Court criticises Bombay High Court for not uploading reasoned order despite one month's passage after pronouncement. Vipul Pramodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 716

Nullification of court direction by legislation impermissible without altering basis of judgment : Supreme Court in ED director's case. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518

If judgment is not delivered within 6 months after reserving, case should be assigned to another bench for fresh hearing. Umesh Rai @ Gora Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Supreme Court asks all Courts & Tribunals to number paragraphs in Orders & Judgments. B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Judiciary

Credit judicial officers' pension arrears by December 8 or face contempt : supreme court's final warning to states. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1011

'Appointments only on advertised vacancies' : Supreme Court holds 2 judges to be wrongly appointed; refuses to unseat them noting 10 yrs service. Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997

Supreme Court issues directions to Delhi Government for construction of Delhi judiciary infrastructure, judges' residences. Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Services Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1068

The Supreme Court passes a slew of directions to High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana for recruitment in district judiciary. Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 962

'High Court best suited to understand needs for judicial service' : Supreme Court rejects Haryana Govt's plea to conduct civil judge recruitment by PSC. Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Judge aspirants get relief; Supreme Court sets aside BPSC's rejection of candidates for not producing original certificates. Sweety Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 818 : AIR 2023 SC 4491

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking 2 years' cooling off period for retired judges' post-retirement appointments. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Unseating Judges after 6 yrs experience is against public interest though their selection was illegal : Supreme Court in Kerala District Judges case. Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Supreme Court says Kerala HC erred in fixing cut-off for viva-voce in 2017 District Judge selection; refrains from unseating selected candidates. Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658

Supreme Court upholds Tripura HC Order that directed State Govt to pay remuneration to retired judge who served as chairman of nsa advisory board. State of Tripura v. Justice (Retd.) Alok Baran Pal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 557

DHJS Exam 2022 : Supreme Court sets aside Delhi HC Order allowing re-evaluation of answer sheet. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi v. Ravinder Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 553

The Supreme Court says its permission is not needed for high courts to transfer presiding officers of Special MP/MLA Courts. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Supreme Court quashes departmental proceedings against judicial officer in Odisha. Suchismita Mishra v. High Court of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 477

Civil Judges' Appointment - The Supreme Court takes a divergent view on granting relief to candidates who submitted category certificates after the cut-off date. Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 460

No adverse observations against judicial officers without due opportunity. Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 458

Judicial officers' pension - Supreme Court lays down time line for disbursal of arrears by States/UTs. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452 : AIR 2023 SC 2673

District judiciary should not be called 'subordinate judiciary'. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452 : AIR 2023 SC 2673

'Judges are not employees of state, district judiciary's independence part of basic structure'. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452 : AIR 2023 SC 2673

Increase in salary of high court judges must reflect in same proportion to district judges. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452 : AIR 2023 SC 2673

Judicial officers' inability to meet targets during initial years need not be viewed seriously : Supreme Court relaxes ACP norms for Civil Judges (Jr Div). All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452 : AIR 2023 SC 2673

Judicial officers' pension - notionally include increment which becomes due on the day after retirement. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 452 : AIR 2023 SC 2673

Supreme Court stays promotion of Judicial Officers as District Judges in Gujarat. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 426 : AIR 2023 SC 2328

Can't direct that 50% hc judges should be from district judiciary; but at least 1/3rd should be from judicial services. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Pronouncing the operative portion without preparing the entire Judgment is unbecoming of a judicial officer: Supreme Court upholds dismissal of civil judge. Registrar General High Court of Karnataka v. Sri M.Narasimha Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 286 : AIR 2023 SC 2005

Judicial officers' pay hike - Supreme Court dismisses review petitions of Centre & States against direction to implement commission recommendations. Union of India v. All India Judges Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 273

District Judges Appointment - Only 10% posts can be filled through limited competitive examination. Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 181 : (2023) 5 SCC 364 : (2023) 2 SCR 219

Judicial officer suppresses criminal case in application form; Supreme Court upholds termination, says subsequent closure of case irrelevant. Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Supreme Court criticises centre for sitting over collegium proposals for judges' transfer, says it gives impression of 'third party interferences'. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Transferred Judge does not go with the label 'Bar Judge' or 'Service Judge': Supreme Court makes important clarification on categorising vacancies. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Labour Law

EPF Act can be applied even to factories not engaged in schedule 1 industries: Supreme Court rejects plea of umbrella making unit. Thankamma Baby v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 972

Provident fund - when can two establishments be clubbed together for epf act coverage? the supreme court explains. Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College of Visual Arts v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 905

Electronics shop repairing & servicing electrical goods is a “factory” under ESI act. J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Pathological labs in Kerala covered under ESI Act from 2007 & not 2002 : Supreme Court dismisses ESIC appeal. E.S.I. Corporation v. Endocrinology and Immunology Lab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 600 : AIR 2023 SC 3686 : (2023) 8 SCC 352

Settlement between employee union & employer would not override model standing orders unless it is more beneficial to employee. Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. Jet Airways Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 564 : AIR 2023 SC 3596

Poor line mazdoor dismissed from service for prolonged absence, Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to impose a lesser penalty. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v Ajit Mondal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 209

In labour cases, workers should furnish their own permanent address instead of the union's; service of notice should be on worker. Creative Garments Ltd. v. Kashiram Verma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 198 : AIR 2023 SC 1542 : (2023) 2 SCR 958

The ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation so that social security can be given to employees. ESI Corporation v. Radhika Theatre, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 53 : AIR 2023 SC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 1045

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Allotment of Plot - Demand of Additional Price - The dispute pertains to demand of additional price for the allotment of plot to the Respondent - the additional price can be demanded in case there is enhancement in cost of the land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is the admitted case of the Appellants that the land for allotment of the plot was never acquired. Hence, there could not be any enhancement in the cost of the land by any authority or court under the Land Acquisition Act. From these undisputed facts on record and the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter, there is no illegality committed by the learned court below in setting aside the demand of the additional price of the plot allotted to the Respondent. There is no merit in the present appeal. (Para 12 - 13) Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429 : AIR 2023 SC 2257

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Once it is found that the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are valid, then the claimant is not entitled to seek compensation under the 2013 Act. If the state has either paid compensation or taken possession then proceedings under 1894 would continue to be valid. (Para 5, 17) Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Act was made applicable to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the absence of the exercise of power by the Hon'ble Governor under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, the said law was applicable to the Scheduled Area. (Para 18) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - If the land is continued to be under temporary acquisition for number of years, meaning and purpose of temporary acquisition would lose its significance. Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years. It cannot be disputed that once the land is under temporary acquisition and the same is being used by the ONGC for oil exploration, it may not be possible for the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or to deal with the same in any manner. (Para 7) Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 5A - Merely because Section 5A has not been mentioned in the said order, the entire acquisition proceedings including notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 and more particularly the declaration which was issued after considering the report/objections under section 5A cannot be declared illegal. When the Collector has exercised the power of the appropriate government and a declaration under section 6 of the Act has been issued after considering the report on the objections under Section 5A of the Act, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the aforesaid ground. (Para 12, 12.3) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84

Land Acquisition Act 1894 - While determining the deduction for development charges, the courts should take into consideration important factors including the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, the purpose of acquisition etc. This exercise is required for ascertaining the percentage of deduction by the Courts. (Para 11) Mala v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 18 - Whether the Reference made to the Reference Court was within the limitation? Held, the issue of limitation raised by respondent- Committee before the Reference Court and before the High Court was not only not tenable but was highly unreasonable and improper. Considering the hardship caused to both the parties arrived at a Settlement and requested the High Court to dispose of the said writ petition in terms of the consent terms. The Reference Court after considering all the legal and factual aspects of the matter had rightly held that the Reference was filed with the Collector within the period of limitation as per the order passed by the High Court. The High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the said well-reasoned findings recorded by the Reference Court, and in setting aside the entire award and remanding the matter back to the Reference Court for deciding it afresh. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court being ex facie erroneous, the same are set aside. (Para 5 - 7, 9) Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711

Land Law

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act - The Supreme Court delivers split verdict on whether notice of land acquisition should be served on possessors whose names are not reflected in revenue records. Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 930

What does `vacant land' under Section 2 of Urban Land Ceiling Act mean? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Kewal Court Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 867

As a condition to relax zoning restriction, the government can ask landowners to transfer a portion free of cost for public utility. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat v. Kishor Sharad Borawake, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 830 : AIR 2023 SC 4519

HC's decision based on admitted documents & not disputed facts: Supreme Court dismisses orissa govt plea. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa v. G.P Panda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 713 : AIR 2023 SC 4258

The Supreme Court reiterates principles of deduction for development charges in land acquisition compensation claims. Mala v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663 : AIR 2023 SC 3836 : (2023) 9 SCC 315

RFCTLARR Act - The Supreme Court sets aside the award passed during covid lockdown; says 'fair opportunity of hearing must be given to claimant'. Tirupati Developers v. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Land Acquisition - Once proceedings under 1894 act are held to be valid, claimant can't seek compensation under the 2013 Act. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : AIR 2023 SC 3421

Pavement built on acquired land encroached by vendors; Supreme Court asks DDA to take action. Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526 : AIR 2023 SC 3421

TN Highways Act can't be invalidated due to variance from RFCTLARR Act as it has received president's assent. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413

Supreme Court sets aside Andhra Pradesh High Court order which stayed probe into Amravati land scam; asks HC to reconsider. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Varla Ramaiah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 390 : AIR 2023 SC 2150

State & its instrumentalities cannot adopt an attitude of pick & choose in land acquisition compensation matters. Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312

Land Acquisition - After taking possession, land vests with state; any person retaining possession after that is a trespasser. Land and Building Department through Secretary v. Attro Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2023 SC 1964

Vitiated by favouritism': Supreme Court upholds quashing of Odisha Govt's land acquisition for Vedanta University of Anil Agarwal foundation. Anil Agarwal Foundation v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 300

RFCTLARR Act - Owner cannot pray for lapse of land acquisition after refusing to accept compensation. State of Gujarat v Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 247 : (2023) 2 SCR 696

Delhi Land Reforms Act not applicable once an area is urbanised under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191 : AIR 2023 SC 1427

MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam - Scheme will not lapse merely because it was not completed within 3 years despite substantial steps. Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84

'Land acquisition compensation can't be different based on the nature of ownership': Supreme Court strikes down noida authority's classification. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422

Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist without the State Govt. permission. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Land cannot be kept under temporary acquisition for years, It violates right to property under Article 300A. Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021

Sec 24(2) RFCTLARR Act - Benefit of lapse not available if delay in taking possession was due to pending litigation. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36 : AIR 2023 SC 415 : (2023) 1 SCR 683

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Delhi)

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Delhi) - Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Delhi) - Land Reforms Act not applicable to area covered under Municipal Corporation Act - Once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. (Para 36) Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191 : AIR 2023 SC 1427

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab)

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) - the partition having been accepted as per the “Naksha Be”, the joint status of the parties stood severed. The High Court misinterpreted the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and erred in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the appellate court. The Bench quashed the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) ; Section 118 - Disposal of other question - When a Revenue Officer takes a decision under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, for partition of property, then the said partition would stand completed and the joint status of the parties would stand severed; subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. (Para 30) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074

Legal Aid

Advocate appointed to represent the accused should be given reasonable time to go through the file & get ready. Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 732

Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981

Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981 - Merely because a person is having a licence and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop. (Para 6.6) Gurjit Singh v. Union Territory, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 180 : AIR 2023 SC 1395

Liquor

Allegation that liquor group paid Rs. 100 crores to Manish Sisodia debatable; but few distributors made profits of Rs. 338 crores. Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934

Limitation

Can't invoke Section 5 Limitation Act where statute prescribes lesser time period for a particular purpose. Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919

When no limitation period is prescribed, appeal must be filed within 'reasonable time' depending upon facts of each case. North Eastern Chemicals Industries v. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1064

Orders extending the limitation period during covid-19 also apply to period up to which delay can be condoned. Aditya Khaitan v. IL and FS Financial Services Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 845

Section 5 Limitation Act - 'Suffficient Cause' is the cause for which a party could not be blamed. Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9 : (2023) 3 SCC 229

Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96, 149 - Being short of sufficient funds to pay court fee is not a reason to condone delay in filing appeal - In such a scenario, an appeal can be filed in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter the defects can be removed by paying deficit court fees. (Para 5-10) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 - An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law. Belated appeals can only be condoned, when sufficient reason is shown before the court for the delay. The appellant who seeks condonation of delay therefore must explain the delay of each day. It is true that the courts should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay, and explanation of each day's delay should not be taken literally, but the fact remains that there must be a reasonable explanation for the delay. (Para 5) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Limitation Act, 1962; Section 5 - Justice oriented approach rather than the iron- cast technical approach to be adopted - Supreme Court restored an appeal before lower appellate court which had dismissed it on the ground that the delay of 52 days was not properly explained. (Para 3-6) Raheem Shah v. Govind Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 - 'Sufficient cause' is the only criterion for condoning delay. 'Sufficient Cause' is the cause for which a party could not be blamed. (Para 25) Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9: AIR 2023 SC 288 : (2023) 3 SCC 229

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

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5 - Condonation of Delay - A liberal approach should be taken regarding delay in appeals filed by the State. (Para 37) Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865

Lokayukta

Kerala Lok Ayukta only has recommendatory jurisdiction, cannot issue positive directions. Additional Tahsildar v. Urmila G., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

Supreme Court restores Odisha Lokayukta's probe order against Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi MLA. Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 135 : AIR 2023 SC 1202 : (2023) 2 SCR 560

Lokayukta Act, 2014

Lokayukta Act, 2014 (Odisha); Section 20(1) - No infirmity in Lokayukta's direction to the Director of Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack to conduct a preliminary inquiry - Supreme Court sets aside Orissa HC order which set aside Lok Ayukta direction. Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 135 : AIR 2023 SC 1202 : (2023) 2 SCR 560

Lottery

Supreme Court rejects Centre's challenge to maintainability of Meghalaya's suit challenging provisions of Lotteries Regulation Act. State of Meghalaya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; Section 54 - the words used in Section 54 of the Adhiniyam are “fails to commence implementation”. That does not mean that there must be implementation of the scheme within the time stipulated under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. There is a clear distinction between the words “implementation” of the scheme and “to commence implementation”- word “implementation” occurring in section 54 of the Adhiniyam cannot be construed to mean that even after substantial steps have been taken by the authority towards the implementation of the scheme, the scheme shall lapse after the expiry of three years because of its non-completion within that period - Approves MP HC judgment in Sanjai Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of M.P.AIR 1991 MP 72. (Para 8, 9) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; Section 54 - When within three years various steps were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire the land by negotiations and even thereafter on failure to acquire the land by negotiations approaching the State Government to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. The High Court has adopted too narrow a meaning while interpreting and/or considering section 54 of the Adhiniyam. (Para 11) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007; Section 9(1) - It is only by way of regulating the fees so proposed that the AFRC would exercise the power of reviewing the proposed fees, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the educational institution concerned. The contrary stand taken by the AFRC, as is evident from its communications to the appellant society, therefore cannot be countenanced. It is not open to the AFRC to seek to unilaterally fix the fees to be charged by the appellant society for the professional courses offered through its educational institutions. (Para 16) Icon Education Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 202 : AIR 2023 SC 1680 : (2023) 2 SCR 728

Manual Scavenging

'Completely eradicate manual scavenging': Supreme Court directs Union & States; increases compensation for sewer deaths to Rs. 30 lakh. Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917

'Ensure manual sewer cleaning is completely eradicated' : Tead 14 directions issued by Supreme Court against manual scavenging. Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917

Marine Insurance Act, 1963

Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - An insured party seeking insurance coverage based on a Classification Certificate for a vessel must proactively bring any shortcomings or defects to the attention of the Classification Society before the certificate is issued. This is important as the insurance coverage is based on the assumption that the Classification Society has diligently assessed all aspects before issuing the certificate. (Para 16, 21) Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640

Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - If the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness. (Para 16) Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 640

Marriage

Supreme Court refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, asks union govt to form committee to determine rights of queer unions. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Marriage equality case - No right for queer couples to adopt children, supreme court holds by 3:2 majority. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Queerness not an urban, elitist concept: Supreme Court declares. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

End discrimination against queer couples, address exclusion of same-sex partners from benefits: Supreme Court to State. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Marriage Equality - 5 reasons why the Supreme Court didn't include same-sex unions under the Special Marriage Act. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Right to civil union, adoption, transgender persons' right to marry: where Supreme Court bench agreed & disagreed in marriage equality case. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Marriage equality case - Conclusions and directions of Supreme Court judgments. Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Marriage is considered 'pious' in Indian society: divorce on ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' is not always desirable. Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 873 : AIR 2023 SC 4920

Hindu marriage can be dissolved through customary divorce if the existence of such a customary right is established. Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 848

Child from void / voidable marriage cannot be treated as coparcener by birth in Mitakshara Hindu Undivided Family. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : (2023) 10 SCC 1 : AIR 2023 SC 4707

Children of invalid marriages have right in their parents' share in hindu joint family property. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Advocates should not solemnise 'self-respect marriages' in professional capacity but can act as witnesses in private capacity. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735

Self-respect marriages don't require public solemnisation or declaration : Supreme Court overrules Madras HC Judgment. Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735

Keeping spouses together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage is cruelty to both parties : Supreme Court dissolves marriage. Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Law presumes marriage when man and woman cohabits for a long time. Shiramabai v. Captain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 672 : AIR 2023 SC 3920

Supreme Court dismisses plea to raise age of marriage for women as 21 years, says it's for parliament to decide. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 143

Maternity Benefit

Maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 - Maternity benefits must be granted even if the period of benefit overshoots the term of contractual employment. (Para 10) Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Media

'Police briefing should not result in media trial': Supreme Court directs MHA to frame guidelines; asks DGPs to give suggestions. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : AIR 2023 SC 4497 : (2023) 9 SCC 186

Medical

MBBS - Supreme Court dismisses plea of student with 80% locomotor disability for medical admission in PwD quota. Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 956

MBBS admission in pwd quota - Disability assessment report must explain how the candidate can't pursue the course. Bambhaniya Sagar Vasharambhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 841

NEET PG: Supreme Court grants relief to candidate denied benefit of OCI card holder based on 2021 MEA notification. Pallavi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 741

NEET PG - Students who take admission in all india quota can't vacate seats after 2nd round of AIQ counselling. Amrit Malik v. Medical Counselling Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 684

MBBS: Supreme Court allows repatriated foreign medical students in the penultimate year to clear final exams in two attempts. Archita v. National Medical Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 275

MBBS: Supreme Court imposes Rs 2.5 crores penalty on medical college for illegal admissions; protects students. National Medical Commission v. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 113 : AIR 2023 SC 942 : (2023) 1 SCR 519

Prescribing lesser qualifications for medical practitioners serving rural areas is unconstitutional. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57

The Supreme Court strikes down Assam law allowing diploma holders to treat specified diseases and perform minor procedures. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Medical Council Act, 1956

Medical Council Act, 1956; Section 10A - Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 - the 2015 Act is not in conflict with the Indian Medical Council Act, since the Act does not deal with community health professionals who would practise as allopathic practitioners in the manner as they were permitted to practise under the Assam Act, in rural areas of the state. Hence, the Act of 2015 is not hit by Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution and is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Baharul Islam v. Indian Medical Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 57 : AIR 2023 SC 721

Medical Insurance

Once an insurer accepts that concealment of disease was not material, reimbursement & renewal can't be refused. Om Prakash Ahuja v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 509 : AIR 2023 SC 3257

Medical Negligence

No case of medical negligence if complications suffered by a patient totally unrelated to the medical procedure undergone. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 926

To hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. M.A Biviji v. Sunita, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931

Medical negligence and res ipsa loquitur - Where negligence is evident, the burden of proof shifts to the hospital. Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826

Prioritise cases of HIV positive persons: Supreme Court directs all Courts; issues directions to Centre and States to enforce HIV Act. Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826

'Army & Air Force liable': Supreme Court awards rs 1.5 crore compensation to air veteran who contracted HIV during blood transfusion. Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826

The Supreme Court sets aside adverse observations by NCDRC against top cardiologist Dr. Upendra Kaul. Upendra Kaul v. S.C. Mathur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 676

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - A foetus is dependent on the mother and cannot be recognized as an individual personality from that of the mother as its very existence is owed to the mother. It would be incongruous to conclude that the foetus has a separate identity from the mother and in spite of the physical or mental health of a mother being under threat, she will have to continue her pregnancy until the foetus is born which would endanger her delicate health. Such a position is contrary to Article 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India which recognize the right to life and liberty and particularly those of a woman. (Para 7) In the matter of Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - One cannot also lose sight of the fact that reproduction is unique to women and throughout her life, a woman goes through the process of menstruation, pregnancy, delivery, post-delivery phase and ultimately menopause. Right to reproductive health being a woman's human right would also include the right to an abortion. Otherwise, a woman who is forced into an unwanted pregnancy would experience physical and mental trauma and to endure the pregnancy which may continue in the post-natal period owing to which she would have the burden of bringing up an additional child and consequently, may lose out on other opportunities in life including right to employment and contribution to the income of the family. (Para 7) In the matter of Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - The pregnant lady is not interested in continuing with the pregnancy. In such a situation whether the child to be born is viable or if the child would be a healthy child are not relevant considerations. What is to be focused upon is, whether, the pregnant lady intends to give birth to a child or not. (Para 6) In the matter of Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 881

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - “To give birth to an unwanted child or not” is the question posed by the appellant in this appeal, being unsuccessful before the Gujarat High Court. It is significant to note that the High Court has not taken into consideration the relevant facts that the appellant was pregnant for 25 weeks and 6 days +/- 2 weeks and the weight of foetus was around 914 grams as per ultra-sonography report. The report further stated that although there is no congenital abnormality in the foetus, the medical termination of the pregnancy could be done only if the Court permits, after taking the consent of the appellant and explaining potential risk to maternal health. However, the following paragraphs of the report have not been noted by the High Court that at present the survivor is clinically fit for above mentioned procedure and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy would not adversely affect child bearing capacity and General Health of the Survivor in future. We find that in the absence of even noticing the aforesaid portion of the report, the High Court was not right in simply holding that “the age of the foetus is almost 27 weeks as on 17.08.2023 and considering the statements made by the learned advocate for the petitioner-victim and the averments made in the application the petition for medical termination of pregnancy stands rejected”, which, in our view is ex facie contradictory. (Para 9, 10) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - A woman alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion. (Para 17) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - In Indian society, within the institution of marriage, generally pregnancy is a reason for joy and celebration and of great expectation, not only for the couple but also for their families and friends. By contrast, pregnancy outside marriage, in most cases, is injurious, particularly, after a sexual assault/abuse and is a cause for stress and trauma affecting both the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman the victim. Sexual assault or abuse of a woman is itself distressing and sexual abuse resulting in pregnancy compounds the injury. This is because such a pregnancy is not a voluntary or mindful pregnancy. (Para 13) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - In the context of abortion, the right of dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Although human dignity inheres in every individual, it is susceptible to violation by external conditions and treatment imposed by the State. The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the state is central to the idea of human dignity. Deprivation of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical well-being also injures the dignity of women. (Para 18) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Menstrual Hygiene

The Supreme Court directs the Union Government to frame national policy on free sanitary napkins & safe disposal mechanisms in schools. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 309 : AIR 2023 SC 3444

Mental illness

Supreme Court orders release of daughter suffering from mental illness after 12 year sentence for homicide of father. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Migrant Labourers

The Supreme Court directs States to provide ration cards to migrant / unorganized workers registered on the centre's e-shram portal within 3 months. In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 332 : AIR 2023 SC 2085

Mines & Minerals

Mineral (Auction) Rules 2015 - State entitled to annul tender notification when number of technically qualified bidders is less than 3. State of Jharkhand v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1002

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

'Pending application for mining lease doesn't create any vested right' : Supreme Court upholds Rajasthan Rule introducing auction. State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586 : AIR 2023 SC 3586

Collector is competent authority to cancel lease deed under Rule 51(7) OMMC Rules. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : AIR 2023 SC 1317 : (2023) 2 SCR 72

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

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

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Section 15 - Appeals seek to overturn the decision of the High Court declaring Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7 (3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as unconstitutional. Held, in any case, the decisions of the High Court rendered earlier do not stand in the way of the impugned amendments. They were with respect to sandstone alone, while in the impugned judgment the High Court applied it to all the minor minerals. In the decision rendered by the High Court dated 13.03.2013 all the applications were directed to be considered as per the amended Rules. In fact, the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned order is contrary to the earlier order passed. The impugned Rules have been introduced in exercise of the power conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. There is neither a right nor it gets vested through an application made over a government land. Law does not facilitate hearing the parties in bringing an amendment by an authority competent to do so. The High Court has totally misconstrued the issues ignoring the fact that there is a delegation of power to the first appellant which was rightly exercised as conferred under Section 15 of the 1957 Act. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgments. (Para 22) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586

Minor Mineral Concession Rules

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (Rajasthan); Rule 4 (10) and Rule 7 (3) - Legal Malice – Amendment made vide Notification dated 28.01.2011 to Rule 4 and 7 - It is contended that the impugned Rules have been brought forth only to nullify the effect of the judgments. The Appellants have duly complied with the orders passed. Even otherwise, law is quite settled that the basis of a judgment can be removed and a decision of the court cannot be treated like a statute, particularly when power is 2 available to act and it is accordingly exercised in public interest. In such a view of the matter, do not find any legal malice in the amendments. (Para 21) State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 586

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (Orissa) - Rule 51(7) - Collector is the competent authority to cancel a lease deed for non-production of solvency certificate. Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattanaik, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 174 : AIR 2023 SC 1317 : (2023) 2 SCR 72

Mistake

'There was a mistake on part of this court': Supreme Court recalls order disbursing money to two persons in unitech case. Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 263 : AIR 2023 SC 1626 : (2023) 4 SCR 950

Mobile Tower

State govt has power to impose permit fee on erection of mobile towers. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd; v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 849

Motor Vehicle

Aggregators License - States may keep in mind centre's guidelines while framing rules. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100 : (2023) 4 SCC 349

Can employee insured under ESI Act claim motor accident compensation? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Rajkumar Agrawal v. Vehicle Tata Venture, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 62

License necessary to operate as cab aggregator: Supreme Court asks uber to apply for license from Maharashtra Govt. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

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

Motor accident claims need not be filed before the MACT of the area where the accident occurred. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

'No negligence' finding in the final report has no bearing on the claim petition as the standard of proof is different. Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : AIR 2023 SC 3349

No right to recovery for the insurer merely because the vehicle owner didn't verify the driver's license. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 938

Physical disability must be assessed with reference to the victim's nature of work. Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : AIR 2023 SC 3601 : (2023) 8 SCC 193

Social status of deceased to be considered if there's no definite proof of income. Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 697

Supreme Court criticises 'lethargic attitude' of states in not filing compliance report. Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Supreme Court directs insurance company to pay 4 lakh to insured who incurred medical expenses for treatment of person injured in motor accident. Hem Raj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 574

Supreme Court enhances compensation of victim with 75% disability, awards compensation for loss of marriage prospects. Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528 : AIR 2023 SC 3333

Supreme Court sets aside motor accident compensation awarded to elder brothers of deceased; says they weren't dependents. New India Assurance Company v. Anand Pal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1047

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Aggregators License - The Guidelines issued by the Central Government in 2020 are only of persuasive value and are not mandatory. The ultimate decision on granting a license and formulating rules lies with the State Government, who may consider the Guidelines while making their decision- When the State Government formulates rules in pursuance of its power under Section 96, it may also bear in mind the Guidelines which have been framed by the Union Government in 2020. (Para 8, 9) Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 100 : (2023) 4 SCC 349

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Appellant was working as a gunman. On account of amputation of his right leg above the knee, he was terminated from service. It is not a matter of dispute that a person with his right leg amputated cannot perform the duty of a gunman. This is his functional disability. The Tribunal was right in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 100% and assessing the compensation accordingly. The High Court was in error in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 80%. (Para 10) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - In cases of motor accident claims, the physical disability caused due to an accident must be judged with reference to the nature of the work being done by the injured for assessing award of compensation. (Para 9) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498

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

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be the end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. (Para 9) Sarnam Singh v. Shriram General Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Disability - Inability of the Claimant to work due to the disability cannot be denied on the ground that his Employer was not examined or no letter was produced from the Employer. The evidence of disability such as disability certificate and identity card issued by Directorate for the Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens, cannot be brushed aside. (Para 9) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Marriage Prospects - On account of the injuries sustained claimant has suffered 75% whole body disability. He has clearly deposed that on account of the injuries sustained and consequential disability suffered his marriage prospects have become bleak. Even in the affidavit filed on 30.09.2022 he has deposed that he has remained unmarried and none has come forward to marry him. In other words, the prospects of appellant getting married would remain a dream and for loss of the same he has to be suitably awarded compensation. Hence, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the “loss of marriage prospects. (Para 11) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Pain and Suffering - Enhanced the compensation towards 'Pain and Suffering' to additional Rs. 50,000/, while observing that the Claimant was hospitalized for ten days and was in continuous treatment thereafter. (Para 8) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Salary - Compensation on the aspect of salary to be revised as per the amount mentioned in salary certificate. Claimant has deposed that he was working as Marketing Executive in a private company and drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. as per salary certificate. No doubt claimant did not examine his employer. On this ground, it cannot be gain said by the Insurer that claimant was unable to earn or was not earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. The accident in question had occurred in the year 2007. Even a mason at that point of time was earning not less than Rs.300/- per day or in other words Rs.9,000/- p.m. during 2007. Claimant being a graduate and working as Marketing Executive, his plea of salary being Rs.8,000/- p.m. deserves to be accepted, as it is within proximity of truth and same could not have been ignored by the Tribunal and the High Court on hyper technical grounds. (Para 10) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 15.9 Lakhs from the previous amount of Rs. 2.3 Lakhs, to a motor vehicle accident victim, who sustained 75% whole body injury. The Bench has additionally granted compensation towards 'loss of marriage prospects' since the Claimant remained unmarried due to disability. (Para 11, 13) Lakshmana Gowda B.N. v Oriental Insurance, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 528

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - While considering a petition for compensation for death or injury in a road accident, the standard of proof to be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is the preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would not apply. The final report in the criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits. (Para 9, 10) Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 93 - No person can continue as an aggregator in the absence of a licence- Supreme Court directs Uber to apply for license. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 93, 96 - Cab aggregators license- Supreme Court directs State of Maharashtra to expeditiously frame the rules on granting aggregators license so as to avoid litigation and uncertainty. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 108

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 - It is not mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for compensation under Section 166 before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred - Claimants can approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or the defendant resides. Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Municipal Corporation Act (Delhi)

Municipal Corporation Act (Delhi) - Delhi Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations - These provisions make it abundantly clear that the election of the Mayor has to be held first. The elected Mayor is then required to preside over the election of the Deputy Mayor as the presiding authority. Consequently, with this clarification, it must be noted that the election of the Mayor shall be conducted first in the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Once the Mayor is elected, the elected Mayor shall be the presiding authority for the purpose of the election of the Deputy Mayor. (Para 12) Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 119 : (2023) 5 SCC 414

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra)

Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Section 439 read with Clause (5) of Appendix IV - Service of employees in Zilla Parishad (ZP) should be counted for seniority when Zilla Parishad has been absorbed by Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Clause 5(c), including its first proviso, occupies this field of law till date. The provision explicitly deals with protection of conditions of service of the officers and servants who were earlier employed in a local authority like a ZP, and who have been subsequently absorbed into a Municipal Corporation. It expressly protects their service rendered by them in the local authority before the appointed day and further provides that it shall be considered as service rendered in the Municipal Corporation itself. Given the existence of this unambiguous provision, the only logical conclusion is that the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to be treated as service rendered in the PMC. Such service, therefore, has to be counted towards the determination of their seniority as well. (Para 21) Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229 : (2023) 2 SCR 981

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

National Green Tribunal Act 2010 - Supreme Court allows housing society's appeal against NGT's direction to halt constructions near a lake- issue whether the construction was in submerged area was decided in earlier civil proceedings in favour of the society- that decree was affirmed by the SC- So NGT could not have ignored the decree- he decree was affirmed by all the courts. When the NGT was made aware of this fact, it chose to ignore it. Without a review, or any known process by which a decree concerning the same facts could be reopened, the NGT could not have rejected the society's contentions. The society's appeal, therefore, requires to succeed. Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Johi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 258 : AIR 2023 SC 1558

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Principles of Natural Justice - Expert Opinion - the National Green Tribunal (NGT) being an adjudicatory body must comply with the principles of natural justice. If the NGT intends to rely on the report of an expert Committee or any other material that is brought to its knowledge, the concerned party must be informed of it in advance, and be given an opportunity for discussion and rebuttal. (Para 16) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - The appellants were not given an opportunity to file their objections to the recommendations of the Expert Committee. The Court noted that the recommendations were uploaded on 15.01.2022 and the Tribunal passed its final order on 18.01.2022, i.e, only three days later. Accordingly, on the ground of noncompliance of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the NGT for re-consideration from the stage of recommendation of the Expert Committee. Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 17 - Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948; Section 53 - Whether NGT can exercise jurisdiction when the matter is covered under the ESI Act? Held, that this issue merits consideration. But given the circumstances of the case, chose not to interfere with the compensation given and kept the question of law open for the future. Rourkela Steel plant v. Odisha Pollution Control Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 593

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 19(1) - Principles of Natural Justice - the NGT is a judicial body and therefore exercises adjudicatory function. The very nature of an adjudicatory function would carry with it the requirement that principles of natural justice are complied with, particularly when there is an adversarial system of hearing of the cases before the Tribunal or for that matter before the Courts in India. The NGT though is a special adjudicatory body constituted by an Act of Parliament, nevertheless, the discharge of its function must be in accordance with law which would also include compliance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in Section 19(1) of the Act. (Para 15) Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 524

National Green Tribunal Act 2010; Section 25 - The NGT has power under Section 25 to execute its orders as decrees of a civil court-The Tribunal is entrusted with the wholesome power to ensure that its orders are complied with. (Para 5, 6) Sushil Raghav v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 140

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Challenge to Environmental Clearance - Whether against the corrigendum to the EC along with additional conditions, an appeal before the NGT would be maintainable or not-An aggrieved person may always challenge the corrigendum imposing additional conditions to the Environmental Clearance, but the appeal would be restricted to the corrigendum if the original EC is not under challenge and/or the original EC has been confirmed by the NGT earlier on certain conditions which have not been challenged. (Para 9) IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Ltd. v. T. Muruganandam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 192 : (2023) 6 SCC 585

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - NGT has the jurisdiction to direct the CPCB that it should in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. (Para 44, 47) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. VBR Menon, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 185 : AIR 2023 SC 1573 : (2023) 7 SCC 368

National Highway

Dispute on apportionment of compensation can only be determined by 'principal civil court of original jurisdiction'. Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 : AIR 2023 SC 3337

National Highways Authority Act, 1956

National Highways Authority Act, 1956; Section 3H - Apportionment under subclause (4) of Section 3H of the Act 1956 is not a revaluation but a distribution of the value already fixed among the several persons interested in the land acquired in accordance with the nature and quantum of the respective interests. In ascertainment of those interests, the determination of their relative importance and the manner in which they can be said to have contributed to the total value fixed are questions to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law governing the rights of the parties. The actual rule for apportionment has to be formulated in each case so as to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the total value or compensation among the persons interested in the land. (Para 28) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511

National Highways Authority Act, 1956; Section 3H - When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the summary power, vesting in the competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of subsection (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. The dispute being of the nature triable by the Civil Court that the law steps in to provide for that to be referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court. (Para 33-34) Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate Mau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511

National Livestock Policy, 2013

National Livestock Policy, 2013 - The decision regarding the prohibition of cow slaughter is for the legislature to take. The court cannot force the legislature to come out with a specific law even in its writ jurisdiction. The court also took note of the steps taken by the state governments for the protection of cows. Mathala Chandrapati Rao v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 535

National Security

'Shocking': Supreme Court on UP Govt invoking National Security Act in Revenue Recovery Case; Quashes detention of SP Leader. Yusuf Malik v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 301

Supreme Court lifts telecast ban on MediaOne, says state using plea of 'national security' to deny citizens' rights. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

National Security concerns won't absolutely abrogate principles of natural justice; no blanket immunity for IB reports. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Neutral Bench

Supreme Court imposes Rs 50k costs on litigant who sought 'neutral bench' without OBC / unreserved category judges to hear reservation matter. Lokendra Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 540

Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Rajasthan)

Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Rajasthan); Section 18 - Even in case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso to Section 18 - In Section 18, there is no distinction between the termination, removal, or reduction in rank after the disciplinary proceedings/enquiry or even without disciplinary proceedings/enquiry. (Para 5-6) Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2023 SC 539 : (2023) 1 SCR 949

Ownership

Mere living in a particular house would not mean it is under ownership of the person living there. Purushottam Bagh Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. v. Shobhan Pal Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 762 : AIR 2023 SC 4255

Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (Chhattisgarh)

Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (Chhattisgarh); Rule 6 - Election Petition seeking the relief for re-counting of votes only, without seeking any other reliefs i.e., declarations as contemplated in Rule 6, would not be tenable in the eye of law. (Para 13, 15) Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 661

Parliament

The Supreme Court refuses to entertain the PIL seeking framework for citizens to directly petition to parliament. Karan Garg v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 235

Partition

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

Partition can also be effected under a settlement or oral understanding. H. Vasanthi v. A. Santha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 655 : AIR 2023 SC 3873

Findings relating to title in a simple suit for partition cannot bind third parties. Trinity Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 488 : AIR 2023 SC 3361

For interpreting Section 121 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, analogy can be drawn from Order XX Rule 18 Of CPC. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074

Hindu Succession - If law gets amended before passing final decree in partition suit, parties can seek its benefit. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Settlement deed in a partition suit must include written consent of all parties; consent decree among only some parties not maintainable. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262

Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Himachal Pradesh)

Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Himachal Pradesh); Sections 3(1) and 3 (1-A) - Amendment and Validation Act, 1997 - It is permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in an earlier legislation, as pointed out by a constitutional court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. The defect can be removed both prospectively and retrospectively by a legislative process and previous actions can also be validated. However, where a legislature merely seeks to validate the acts carried out under a previous legislation which has been struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would also be ultra-vires. NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh Secretary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756

Passport

'Passport authority cannot retain passport without impounding': Supreme Court grants relief to husband in matrimonial dispute. Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. State of Andra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565 : AIR 2023 SC 3633 : (2023) 8 SCC 251

Patriarchal Remarks

'Courts should not further the notion that only male child will assist parents in old age; avoid patriarchal remarks'. Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961; Rule 185 - Disability Pension - The appellant, after serving the Indian Army for 15 years until 1987 and having an exemplary service record, was diagnosed with a "complete heart block." He was placed in the permanent low medical category, qualifying for a hundred percent disability treatment. Despite being granted a disability pension, the Armed Forces Appellate Tribunal (AFT) limited its duration to one year. The key contention was the appellant's refusal to undergo a potentially life-threatening surgery, which the Medical Board considered while assessing his disability. The Court emphasized Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army-1961, which prescribes that, if a disability is deemed incapable of improvement, the disability pension should be granted for 10 years initially, subject to reassessment. The AFT had either overlooked or not justified its deviation from this rule. The Court set aside the Tribunal's one-year confinement, directing that the appellant receive his disability pension for 10 years, after which a re-assessment would be in order, in line with Rule 185. The arrears and payments for the pension are restricted to three years prior to his appeal to the Tribunal and the relevant future duration. The appeal was thus allowed. Ex L/NK Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Reservation in Promotions - the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct RBI to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion to an employee with disability, who was denied the same for a long time. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Issue of the RBI not condoning the shortfall of marks - It was rather harsh on the part of the RBI to apply the same standards for general candidates and those with disabilities. RBI, as a model employer, ought to have taken an informed decision in this regard commensurate with the aspirations of persons with disabilities. (Para 48, Dipankar Datta; J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – the Act, 1995 did not contain any express provision for reservation to persons with disabilities serving in the feeder cadre, though there were provisions indicating that merely because an employee is one living with a disability, they ought not to be denied promotion. However, mere absence of an express mandate for reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities did not absolve the Government from keeping reserved vacancies on promotional posts. (Para 13 & 16, Dipankar Datta; J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - In 2003, the employee had appeared in the All India Merit Test to secure promotion to a Class-I post. But he fell short of the qualifying marks by 3 marks. He made representations seeking condonation of the shortfall marks, which were not considered. The Supreme granted notional promotion to him to the post of Assistant Manager Grade A from the date of presentation of his writ petition before the Bombay High Court (27th Sept, 2006) and actual promotion from the last date for compliance of the order of the High Court (15th Sept, 2014). The Bench granted two months' time to complete the process and four months' time to compute and release the monetary benefits accruing to him. It also clarified that in two years when he retires, in computing his retiral benefits his promotion from 27th Sept, 2006 should be taken into consideration. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Political Party

Supreme Court affirms Madras HC order allowing EPS to continue as AIADMK interim general secretary, dismisses OPS's challenge. Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugham, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133 : AIR 2023 SC 1253

Possession

Second suit seeking damages for illegal occupation maintainable after filing suit for possession. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ATM Constructions Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

In suit for possession, prior possession becomes relevant when both parties fail to establish title. Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261 : AIR 2023 SC 1780 : (2023) 6 SCR 359

Power of Attorney

General power of attorney holder can sub-delegate his powers if there is a specific clause permitting sub-delegation. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Is non-production of power of attorney fatal to title suit? The Supreme Court split verdict. Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29 : AIR 2023 SC 506 : (2023) 8 SCC 410

Practice and Procedure

Every Court has high pendency, constitutional courts should avoid fixing time-schedule for cases unless exceptional. Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 978

Judges taking up cases not assigned by Chief Justice is an act of 'gross impropriety'. Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Cannot ignore ratio laid in an earlier Judgment merely because it stands referred to a larger bench. Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 842

No litigant should be permitted to misuse the process of law through vexatious applications. Vasant Nature Cure Hospital & Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust v. Ukaji Ramaji, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 783 : AIR 2023 SC 4314

SLP cannot be filed to challenge an order passed by the High Court on the Administrative side. Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

'Only CJI can assign cases' : Supreme Court bench unhappy with another bench assigning a case to it. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Aggarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Precedent

SC Order dismissing an appeal without any reasons cannot be treated as precedent. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : AIR 2023 SC 4503

When does an order become a binding precedent? the Supreme Court explains. Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660

'Not everything said in a judgment constitutes a precedent': Supreme Court explains distinction between obiter dicta & ratio decidendi. Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Rajasthan)

Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Rajasthan); Section 14 (3) - the objective of section 14(3) of the Act was to safeguard the interest of tenants. As per the provision, Eviction suit cannot be filed by landlord within 5 years of tenancy. However, the court opined that even though in this case, the eviction suit was filed within 5 years, 38 years have gone by since then. This itself would cure the defect in the eviction suit. (Para 16, 18) Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Press Freedom

Press has a duty to speak truth to power, critical views on govt policies can't be termed anti-establishment. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Maharashtra)

Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Maharashtra); Section 9 (1) - The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court who had ruled on the validity of the sale deed executed between the co-defendants with respect to the suit property, by holding the same as void in view of Section 9 (1) of the Fragmentation Act. Consequently, the sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff was also held as void. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Maharashtra); Section 36A - While entertaining the contentions raised in respect of the Fragmentation Act, the Trial Court and the High Court did not take into consideration the statutory bar of jurisdiction contained under Section 36A of the Fragmentation Act, which barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act. Further, it reckoned that since the written statement of the defendant only contained a vague averment referring to the Fragmentation Act, the same could not be construed as a counter-claim capable of being treated as a plaint. Consequently, it did not enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, on the said issue. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013

Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - The Union and the States are duty bound to ensure that the practice of manual scavenging is completely eradicated - Directions issued. (Para 96) Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917

Property

Title of immovable property can't be transferred through agreement to sell or general power of attorney. Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Agreement to sell doesn't transfer ownership rights or confer title. Munishamappa v. N. Rama Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 987

Transfer of Property Act - Rents receivable can be assigned by debtor to creditor as actionable claim. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v Hdfc Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 929 : AIR 2023 SC 5239

Section 106 Transfer of Property Act - Onus on tenant to prove that premises was leased for manufacturing purpose. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827

TP Act - Transaction can't be regarded as 'mortgage by conditional sale' if condition for reconveyance is not specified in the same deed. Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : AIR 2023 SC 3950

Difference between 'mortgage by conditional sale' & 'sale with condition of retransfer': Supreme Court explains. Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : AIR 2023 SC 3950

Use of expression 'ta khubzul badlain' in sale deed by itself will not be determinative of the true nature of the transaction. Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582 : AIR 2023 SC 3637

Though agreement to sell does not confer title, possessory right of prospective purchaser protected under Sec 53A TP Act. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : AIR 2023 SC 2754 : (2023) 7 SCC 361

Will (before death of the testator) or General Power of Attorney (GPA) cannot confer title in immovable property. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Dispute between defendants regarding validity of sale deed can't be considered in suit for possession instituted by plaintiff. Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 404 : AIR 2023 SC 3319

Onus to prove adverse possession shifts to defendants, once title is upheld in plaintiff's favour in earlier suit between the same parties. Prasanna v. Mudegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Value of plant and machinery permanently embedded to land must be ascertained to compute stamp duty for sale deed. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357 : (2023) 8 SCR 1098

Section 52 TP Act - Alienation of suit property pendente lite not invalid; but it'll be subject to rights of litigants. Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261

Transfer of Property Act - Encroacher cannot claim benefit of Section 51. Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

When a person has relinquished rights in father's self acquired property, his sons are estopped from claiming share. Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65 : AIR 2023 SC 659 : (2023) 1 SCR 261

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Conduct of election is the sole responsibility of the Election Commission. The Human Rights Commission cannot encroach on the autonomy, independence and function of another constitutional authority such as the Election Commission. (Para 9 - 18) National Human Rights Commission v. West Bengal State Election Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 659

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887; Section 17 - Security furnished by the judgment debtor in the form of a rented shop belonging to a third party, of which the surety was a tenant, cannot be accepted as a security in law. The proviso to Section 17 of the Act contemplates that the applicant seeking to set aside an exparte decree must either make a deposit of the amount in question or give security. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kedarnath vs Mohan Lal Kesarwari and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 582, the provision with respect to deposit can be dispensed with by the court. Thus, the applicant can, in other words, seek a dispensation with the requirement of deposit and can seek leave for furnishing such security as the court may direct. Arti Dixit v. Sushil Kumar Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 473

Public Interest

'Public interest not limited to maximising revenue for Govt; it includes fair & transparent process'. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ashish Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking setting up of internal security council to supervise national and state investigating agencies. Agnostos Theos v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Can't pass 'one size fits all' direction for page limit on petitions. Amrish Rajnikant Kilachand v. Secretary General SCI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 646

Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850

Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Rule 14 - the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant. Hence, no fault can be found as the inquiry officer was not a public servant, but a retired officer. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Railway

Members of Railway Protection Force can seek benefits under Employees Compensation Act though RPF declared as an armed force. Railway Protection Special Force v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 835 : AIR 2023 SC 4668

Railways not liable for theft of passenger's belongings : Supreme Court sets aside Consumer Forum's award. Station Superintendent v. Surender Bhola, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 487

Railway compensation claim - Mere absence of ticket doesn't mean victim wasn't bona fide passenger. Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 449 : AIR 2023 SC 2761 : (2023) 6 SCR 399

Supreme Court dismisses plea to restore concession in railway tickets for senior citizens.M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Railways Act, 1989

Railways Act, 1989 - Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Whether the availability of an alternative remedy to claim compensation under Sections 124 and 124-A of the 1989 Act prevents a claim under the 1923 Act? Held, as per Section 128 of the 1989 Act, a person retains the right to claim compensation under the 1923 Act or any other existing law, even if they have the right to compensation under Section 124 or Section 124-A of the 1989 Act. However, the condition is that compensation cannot be claimed multiple times for the same accident. In the present case, there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents had already received compensation for the same accident under another law before making a claim under the 1923 Act. Consequently, their claim under the 1923 Act was not precluded due to the alternative remedy available under the 1989 Act. (Para 62 & 63) Railway Protection Special Force v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 835

Railways Act, 1989 - Mere absence of a ticket on the injured or deceased will not negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Kamukayi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 449 : AIR 2023 SC 2761 : (2023) 6 SCR 399

Real Estate

RERA : Supreme Court seeks responses of States/UTs which haven't established Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Appellate Tribunals. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 657

Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016

Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 – Implementation Progress Report – The Supreme Court seeks responses of States/UTs which haven't established Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Appellate Tribunals. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 657

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

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - More than a decade back, the Apex Court had expressed serious concern despite its repeated pronouncements in regard to the High Courts ignoring the availability of statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even after, the decision in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, it appears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act. (Para 96) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Recovery of Money

Writ petition for recovery of money can't be entertained, particularly when civil remedy has been invoked. Director of Agriculture v. M.V. Ramachandran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Recruitment

Eligibility conditions for post can't be relaxed after the last date of applications without giving wide publicity. Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 991

The last date to fulfil eligibility criteria is the last date to submit applications, in the absence of any specific rule. (Para 61) Divya v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 879

Duty to fill up vacancies from the waiting list does not arise in the absence of a rule mandating it. State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472 : AIR 2023 SC 2792

Recusal

Supreme Court Judge Justice M.R. Shah refuses to recuse from hearing Sanjiv Bhatt's plea. Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 420

Re-Evaluation

Assessment of descriptive answers is subjective; Courts should not enter that arena: Supreme Court disapproves of HC ordering re-evaluation. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 131 : (2023) 2 SCR 471

Registration

When can an unregistered lease deed, which is compulsorily registrable, be admitted to show nature & character of possession? the Supreme Court explains. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827 : AIR 2023 SC 4658

WB Registration Act - Registrar cannot exercise power of substantive review while cancelling society's registration. Chen Khoi Kui v. Liang Miao Sheng, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 796 : AIR 2023 SC 4803 : (2023) 9 SCC 376

S.17 Registration Act - High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to alter or amend registered lease deed. Gwalior Development Authority v. Bhanu Pratap Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 340 : AIR 2023 SC 2090 : (2023) 3 SCR 498

Unregistered agreement to sell is admissible as evidence in suit for specific performance. R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 304 : AIR 2023 SC 1895 : (2023) 2 SCR 834

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SARFAESI Act no license for bank officers to act against law. Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

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

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

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Fees paid by director does not attract exemption under Clause 4 of schedule III of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and SubBrokers) Regulations, 1992. GPSK Capital Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Mantri Finance Ltd.) v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 222 : (2023) 2 SCR 737

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

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 - Auction cannot 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

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rule 9(5) of SARFAESI Rules cannot be pressed into service since the auction purchaser was not informed regarding the proceedings pending before DRT at the time of auction or even thereafter - Directs refund of the deposit forfeited by the bank. Mohd. Shariq v Punjab National Bank, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Writ petitions in SARFAESI matters - Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2), 13(4), 18 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993; Section 2(g) - Whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the 'debt due' within the meaning of proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets, the amount mentioned in the sale certificate will have to be considered while determining the amount of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In a case where both are under challenge, namely, steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets and also the auction sale of the secured assets, in that case, the “debt due” shall mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person, whichever is higher -The borrower can take the benefit of the amount received by the creditor in an auction sale only if he unequivocally accepts the sale. In a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest. (Para 13-16) Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11 : AIR 2023 SC 368 : (2023) 1 SCR 553

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - Magistrate's Order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be quashed by High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC when there is a remedy under the SARFAESI Act. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. v. V. Ganesh Murthy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 513

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 26E - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Sections 15 - 23 - 'Priority' conferred / provided under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268 : (2023) 3 SCC 210 : (2023) 1 SCR 873

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14, 17 - Neither District Magistrate nor Metropolitan Magistrate would have any jurisdiction to adjudicate and/or decide the dispute even between the secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4) / order passed under Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal / application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 10) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268 : (2023) 3 SCC 210 : (2023) 1 SCR 873

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 31(i) - When it was the case on behalf of the borrowers that in view of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the properties were agricultural lands, the same were being exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on. (Para 7-8) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : AIR 2023 SC 306 : (2023) 1 SCR 579

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Once the borrower fails to tender the entire amount of dues with all cost & charges to the secured creditor before the publication of auction notice, his right of redemption of mortgage shall stand extinguished / waived on the date of publication of the auction notice in the newspaper in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002. (Para 88) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 8 - Sanctity of Public Auction - It is the duty of the courts to zealously protect the sanctity of any auction conducted. The courts ought to be loath in interfering with auctions, otherwise it would frustrate the very object and purpose behind auctions and deter public confidence and participation in the same. Any other interpretation of the amended Section 13(8) will lead to a situation where multiple redemption offers would be encouraged by a mischievous borrower, the members of the public would be dissuaded and discouraged from in participating in the auction process and the overall sanctity of the auction process would be frustrated thereby defeating the very purpose of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, it is in the larger public interest to maintain the sanctity of the auction process under the SARFAESI Act. (Para 86 - 87) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI matters - High Courts should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 92 – 96) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have applied equitable considerations to overreach the outcome contemplated by the statutory auction process prescribed under the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (v)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9(1) - Borrower's right of redemption of mortgage under the SARFAESI Act will get extinguished once the bank publishes an auction notice for the sale of the secured asset. (Para 105 (iii)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (i)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (8) - The two decisions of the Telangana High Court in the case of Concern Readymix v. Authorised Officer, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 783 and Amme Srisailam v. Union Bank of India do not lay down the correct position of law. In the same way, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Pal Alloys and Metal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 2733 also does not lay down the correction position of law. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in n Sri. Sai Annadhatha Polymers v. Canara Bank, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 178 and the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta v. State Bank of India, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 328 lay down the correct position of law while interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 105 (vi) & (vii) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13 (2) – Conduct of the Bank - Bank is duty bound to follow the provisions of the law as any other litigant. the authorised officer and the Bank cannot act in a manner so as to keep the sword hanging on the neck of the auction purchaser. The law treats everyone equally and that includes the Bank and its officers. The said enactments were enacted for speedy recovery and for benefitting the public at large and does not give any license to the Bank officers to act de hors the scheme of the law or the binding verdicts. (Para 100) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - Multiple applications for extension of time to deposit the outstanding sale amount and interest – Held, the Miscellaneous Application was not maintainable in light of the applicant's failure to comply with the court's orders and statutory provisions - The Court discouraged the practice of filing repeated Miscellaneous Applications without legal foundation and stressed the importance of adhering to statutory procedures. (Para 18) Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 846

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - The Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 could not have withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower. (Para 105 (iv)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 9 - The confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale of the immovable property in form given in appendix (V) to the Rules i.e., in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI. (Para 105 (ii)) Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 808

Service Law

28 years after applying, a man got a job in the postal dept at 50 years of age due to the Supreme Court's Order. Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882

A belated service-related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). (Para 21) Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 883

A candidate accused of a heinous offense cannot claim the right to appointment when the acquittal was on the 'benefit of doubt'. (Para 19) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

A person cannot be deemed to be in service when the first dismissal order is in force. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42 : (2023) 3 SCC 203 : (2023) 1 SCR 893

Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically result in discharge in corresponding disciplinary proceedings. State Bank of India v. P. Zadenga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 850 : AIR 2023 SC 4841

After attending an interview, candidates can't challenge it merely because they feel more marks should've been given. Tanvir Singh v. State of J&K, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253

An applicant does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed just because he/she has qualified in the selection process. (Para 17) Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812

Any request for alternation of date of birth cannot be made after a long delay and especially towards the end of the career of an employee - Employees cannot wake up from their slumber after a long time and seek alteration of date of birth towards the fag end of their career. Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124

Appointment - Acquittal in the criminal case - Even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case, on perusing the facts of the said case and the observations made in the judgement, quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal. It is evident from the facts narrated that after the chargesheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the complainant and filed an application under Section 320 of the CrPC, based on which the offence under Section 341 IPC was compounded. As for the remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent's plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits. (Para 16 & 17) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Appointment - Acquittal in the criminal case - mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors 2 relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken by the State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgement passed by the Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. (Para 19) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Appointment - An employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the disclosure made by a candidate. While doing so, the employer must act with prudence, keep in mind the nature of the post and the duties required to be discharged. Higher the post, more stringent ought to be the standards to be applied. Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, the employer is well within its right to examine the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the offence and verify whether the acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended on technical reasons. If the employer arrives at a conclusion that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed or continued in service. (Para 10) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Appointment cannot be denied citing suppression of material facts when the employer's query was vague in nature. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Appointment can't be denied citing suppression of material facts when the employer's query was vague. State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Appointment in Law Enforcement Agency - The yardstick to be applied in cases where the appointment sought relates to a Law Enforcement Agency, ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy. One must be mindful of the fact that once appointed to such a post, a responsibility would be cast on the respondent of maintaining law and order in the society, enforcing the law, dealing with arms and ammunitions, apprehending suspected criminals and protecting the life and property of the public at large. Therefore, the standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a Law Enforcement Agency must always be higher and more rigourous for the simple reason that possession of a higher moral conduct is one of the basic requirements for appointment to a post as sensitive as that in the police service. (Para 18) State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Appointment order of petitioner as constable of police cancelled as it was found that the the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and was under arrest for four days and he consciously concealed the said information - Mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to the reinstatement in service - If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot obviously be inferred that he was falsely involved, or he had no criminal antecedents - Director General being the highest functionary in the police hierarchy, was the best judge to consider the suitability of the petitioner for induction into the police force. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : AIR 2023 SC 1308

Appointments cannot be made over and above the vacancies which have been advertised, except in an emergency situation or for some unforeseen reasons, in public interest or when a policy decision is taken by the State Government in this regard. (Para 21) Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997

As the respondent was not involved in heinous/serious offence or any offence involving moral turpitude, and the fact that in the said criminal case he has been honourably acquitted, therefore, modifying the order of the High Court, we direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent and issue order of appointment to the post of constable in West Bengal Police Force within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. (Para 15) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Candidates accused of heinous offences can't claim right to appointment when acquittal was on 'benefit of doubt'. State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : AIR 2023 SC 4553

CCS (Pension) Rules - Service rendered as contractual employee won't qualify for pensionary benefits. Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation v. Magi H. Desai, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 248 : AIR 2023 SC 1623

Central Civil Service Rules - Retired employee can be appointed as inquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Challenge to selection process - The criteria for evaluation of a candidate's performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate's personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel - Simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Tanvir Singh v. State of J&K, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Communicating an annual confidential report to an employee without sufficient time to challenge it, same as non-communication of a report. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 139 : AIR 2023 SC 1190

Compassionate Appointment - Delay on the part of the authorities of the State to decide claims for compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of a scheme of compassionate appointment. Government officials are to act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome object of such a scheme is fulfilled. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175 : AIR 2023 SC 1467 : (2023) 2 SCR 611

Compassionate Appointment - Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. (Para 7.5) State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175 : AIR 2023 SC 1467 : (2023) 2 SCR 611

Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court Summarises Principles. State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175 : AIR 2023 SC 1467 : (2023) 2 SCR 611

Compulsory retirement order can be set aside if it's found to be punitive & was passed to circumvent disciplinary proceedings. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165 : (2023) 2 SCR 30

Court can quash disciplinary proceedings considering acquittal in criminal case on the same charges. Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1043

Debatable if PIL is not at all maintainable in Service matters: Supreme Court leaves issue of law open. Pratap Singh Bist v. Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 970

Delay and laches vital in service matters, can be seen as acquiescence. Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 883

Departmental Proceedings - Acquittal - The nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any benefit in the latter or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings. (Para 29.2) State Bank of India v. P. Zandenga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 850

Difference in pay-scale based on academic qualifications is valid even if the nature of work is the same. Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35 : AIR 2023 SC 448 : (2023) 1 SCR 1009

Different pay scale for seemingly similar posts are justifiable if there is a reasonable classification. Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2023) 2 SCR 529

Disciplinary Action - Power of judicial review for the Courts in disciplinary action is circumscribed. The Court can only correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and the power exercised is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. (Para 9) Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Disciplinary proceedings contemplated' : what does 'contemplate' mean ? The Supreme Court explains. State of Haryana v. Dinesh Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1065

Dismissed from Service - Matter stood closed in the year 2004 - The review petition was also dismissed - The petitioner has not filed a curative petition but has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India claiming that injustice has been done to him and the matter should be reopened - No legal system can have a scenario where a person keeps on raking up the issue again and again once it is resolved at highest level. This is complete wastage of judicial time. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, though we limit the amount of costs considering the petitioner is a dismissed person, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund to be utilized for the SCBA library. K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Distinction between simpliciter termination and punitive termination - This distinction is crucial since if the order of termination is punitive or stigmatic in nature, it becomes mandatory to conduct an inquiry following the procedure and an opportunity to be heard has to be given. Failure to do so may make such termination/discharge illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. If an enquiry or assessment is conducted with the aim of uncovering any misconduct by an employee and results in their termination, it is considered punitive in nature. Whereas, if it is focused on evaluating an employee's suitability for a specific job, the termination is considered termination simpliciter and not punitive. (Para 13) State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the Service Regulations. (Para 18, 19) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710

Educational qualification can be a ground for different pay scale even if the nature of duties are the same - Pay scale difference in the posts of Nursing Assistant and Staff Nurse in Border Security Force upheld - Nature of work may be more or less the same but the scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. (Paras 4.4, 5) Union of India v. Rajib Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 35 : AIR 2023 SC 448 : (2023) 1 SCR 1009

Employee can't seek alteration of date of birth at fag end of career. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields v. Avinash Kumar Tiwari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 124

Employee found unsuitable for job can be dismissed without notice during the probationary period. State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761 : AIR 2023 SC 4202 : (2023) 9 SCC 150

Employees of a state board can't be treated as state govt employees. State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : (2023) 2 SCR 1049

Equal Pay for Equal Work - It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. (Para 14) Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2023) 2 SCR 529

Equal Pay for Equal Work - The doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. (Para 14) Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2023) 2 SCR 529

Even if the Court passes an order of reinstatement in service, an order of payment of back wages is not automatic. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 9) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

Even in case where the information regarding pending criminal case is truthfully furnished and on acquittal therein, an employer has the discretion to consider the antecedents while issuing the letter of appointment. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

For out of turn promotion, parity can't be claimed. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Shukla, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 277

Government employees cannot be denied the annual increment merely because they are to retire on the very next day of earning the increment - The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day - Increment is not an "incentive" to perform well the next year - The entitlement to the benefit of annual increment is due to the service already rendered. (Para 6.7) Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296 : AIR 2023 SC 1956 : (2023) 3 SCR 332

Government resolutions cannot override statutory rules - In service jurisprudence, the service rules are liable to prevail - There can be Government resolutions being in consonance with or expounding the rules, but not in conflict with the same. (Para 25) Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 196 : AIR 2023 SC 1591 : (2023) 2 SCR 900

Government servants cannot claim the benefits of Double Overtime Allowance Benefits under the Factories Act, dehors the service rules - Unlike those employed in factories and industrial establishments, persons in public service who are holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State are required to place themselves at the disposal of the Government all the time - Persons holding civil posts or in the civil services of the State enjoy certain privileges and hence, the claim made by the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court, in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042

Govt employees can't be denied annual increment merely because they retired the next day of earning it. Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL v. CP Mundinamani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 296 : AIR 2023 SC 1956 : (2023) 3 SCR 332

Govt servants required to be at disposal of Govt all the time; can't claim overtime allowance under Factories Act. Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042

Historical similarity in previous pay scales can be considered to allow the same pay scale for similar posts. Union of India v. D.G.O.F. Employees Association, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 977

Home guards entitled to duty allowance as per minimum pay of police personnel : Supreme Court to Odisha Govt. Prakash Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 213

If in a disciplinary proceeding, the order of penalty can be imposed on the charges proved and the punishment imposed is lawfully sustainable on those charges, it is not for the Court to consider whether those grounds alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. Unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any of those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside. (Para 39) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process. (Para 18) Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812

If the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately their name figures in the merit list - though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment - they do have a limited right of being accorded fair and nondiscriminatory treatment. (Para 15) Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882

In a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the employee. In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the employee depending upon the explanation. (Para 23) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

In absence of sanctioned post, the State cannot be compelled to create the post and absorb the persons who are continuing in service of the State - Direction of the High Court to reinstate after creating the posts and absorb the respondents based on their qualification is not sustainable in law. (Para 54 to 57) Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294 : (2023) 3 SCR 390

In disciplinary proceedings, burden of proof depends on the nature of charge and explanation put forward by the employee. State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

In service jurisprudence, service rules will prevail over conflicting government resolutions. Ashok Ram Parhad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 196 : AIR 2023 SC 1591 : (2023) 2 SCR 900

Inquiry proceedings civil servant can be done away with in national security interest. Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 432 : AIR 2023 SC 2391

Issuance of order of appointment is required to be left on the discretion of the employer and the High Court ought not to have taken away the said discretion. (Para 14) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

It is not possible to accept that for the entire period of thirteen years, the employee had no source of income. However, the employer has not come out with the case that from the date of his removal from service, the employee had another source of income. Thus, the employee discharged the burden on him by establishing that he was unemployed. (Para 9) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency, namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies. Unnikrishnan C.V. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 256 : AIR 2023 SC 1943

Joining a disciplined force after suppressing criminal cases is a grave misconduct: Supreme Court approves removal of CISF personnel. Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44 : AIR 2023 SC 482 : (2023) 1 SCR 779

Joining the service of a disciplined force like CISF after suppressing criminal cases is a grave misconduct - Removal from service justified. (Para 9, 13) Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44 : AIR 2023 SC 482 : (2023) 1 SCR 779

Judicial review cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence in departmental enquiry proceedings. A Constitutional Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, cannot decide the case as if it is the first stage of the case, as if inquiry is still being conducted and an inquiry report is being prepared. Evidence cannot be re-appreciated at the stage of judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding as if conviction in a criminal trial is being re-examined by the next higher court. Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478 : AIR 2023 SC 2388 : (2023) 5 SCR 447

Judicial review can't be exercised to re-appreciate evidence in departmental enquiry proceedings. Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478 : AIR 2023 SC 2388 : (2023) 5 SCR 447

Lien' of govt servants cease only when they're appointed on another post 'substantively'/confirmed or absorbed permanently. L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : AIR 2023 SC 5214

Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 150 : AIR 2023 SC 1308

No pension for past service if a central govt employee resigns to join another govt post without permission. Union of India v. H.R. Vijaya Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 807

Officer given higher pay than others in same cadre : Supreme Court slams favouritism, directs recovery. Dr. P.N. Shukla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1044

Once appointment is declared illegal & void ab initio, one cannot legally continue in service and claim salary. Dulu Deka v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691 : AIR 2023 SC 4650 : (2023) 9 SCC 749

OROP Arrears - After the defence ministry cites difficulty in clearing Rs. 28,000 crores dues in one go, Supreme Court extends timeline. Indian Ex Service Movement v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 264

Pay revision is a matters falling within the domain of executive policy making-What is within the domain of the court, is to examine the impact of such fixation and whether it results in discrimination. (Para 27) Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81 : AIR 2023 SC 792

Payment for Home Guards - Home Guards working in the State of Odisha are entitled to Duty Allowance as per the minimum amount of pay to which the police personnel in the State is entitled to. It further clarified that the Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the police personnel of the State and the Duty Allowance to be paid to the Home Guards should be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase from time to time. (Para 9, 10) Prakash Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : (2023) 5 SCR 490

Pension - Past service as contractual employee to be taken into account for pension. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 662

Pension - Supreme Court holds that the employees of Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board are not entitled to pension on a par with Government employees - Employees of a body corporate created by the State cannot be treated as State Government employees in all respects. Such a corollary proposition would practically amount to merging of the Board with the State Government - Entitlement of pension will be as per the Regulations of the Board. (Para 16.1) State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karmachari Sangh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 214 : (2023) 2 SCR 1049

Pension - The right to pensionary benefit is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification - the grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, but a right of the employee, and as such cannot be denied without proper justification. (Para 11 & 12) R. Sundaram v. Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 207 : (2023) 2 SCR 1037

Pension cannot be denied to employee citing wrongful deductions made towards the CPF scheme. Retired employees cannot be made to suffer due to mistakes committed by their employers. Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 419 : AIR 2023 SC 2270 : (2023) 6 SCR 203

Pension can't be denied to employee citing wrongful deductions made towards the CPF scheme. Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 419 : AIR 2023 SC 2270 : (2023) 6 SCR 203

Power of judicial review exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring "that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court -When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with. (Para 10) Ex-Const / DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44 : AIR 2023 SC 482 : (2023) 1 SCR 779

Power of state government and selection committee to reduce cut-off marks after publication of results – Held, advertisement did not confer unbridled power either on state government or on selection committee to modify the selection process by reducing the qualifying marks after the results had already been published – Appeal allowed. (Para 26) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Probation - Employee found unsuitable for job can be dismissed without notice during the probationary period. (Para 19) State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 761

Professors entitled to salary for work done till end of academic year despite attaining retirement age mid term. C. Rajendran v. University of Calicut, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 960

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

Promotion given to employee continuing in service on strength of interim order will lose effect once petition is dismissed. Jagpal Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 771 : AIR 2023 SC 4081

Promotion in Services – Communicating grade awarded in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) – Uncommunicated ACR not to be considered for consideration of promotion – Whether ACR communicated with sufficient time to make representation against it be considered? – Held, ACR communicated one day before promotion committee was convened ought not to be considered since employee had 15 days' time to make a representation against it – Further held, either the DPC could have been postponed or the ACR ought not to have been considered and the same ought to have been treated as uncommunicated ACR – Writ petition allowed. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 139 : AIR 2023 SC 1190

Promotion through 'limited dept competitive exam (LDCE)' can't be equated with normal promotion. Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1026

Public Service Commission cannot recommend more names than what have been advertised and any appointment, which is made in excess to the vacancies, which have been advertised would be arbitrary. The reason being that such selection/appointment would deprive those candidates who are not eligible for appointment at the time these posts were advertised but had become eligible in the subsequent year would be deprived of competing against such posts. (Para 22) Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997

Punishment imposed by disciplinary authority can be interfered with only if it is 'strikingly disproportionate'. Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 : AIR 2023 SC 554 : (2023) 3 SCC 622 : (2023) 1 SCR 961

Rajasthan Non-governmental Educational Institutions Act - Prior approval of director of education required to remove employee. Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 48 : AIR 2023 SC 539 : (2023) 1 SCR 949

Recruitment process for Junior Civil Judges - Directed the State to take immediate steps to fill 175 vacant posts - Rejected the State Governments plea to conduct Civil Judge recruitment by Public Service Commission instead of a Selection Committee that includes representatives of the High Court – Held, the High Court is best suited to understand the needs of the judicial service - the Judges of the High Court who participate in the selection process possess domain knowledge, both in the subject matter and the nature of the service. (Para 23) Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Reducing cut-off marks after publication of results only to provide employment to a particular category violates Article 14. Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Regularisation - Two conditions for regularisation of daily wage employees - Firstly, initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and Secondly, there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working - No claim for regularization if these conditions are not met. Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2023 SC 832 : (2023) 3 SCC 639

Regularisation can't be claimed if appointment was not by a competent authority & there's no sanctioned post. Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 : AIR 2023 SC 832 : (2023) 3 SCC 639

Regularisation of services - In the absence of sanctioned post, the government can't be compelled to create posts & absorb those in service. Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294

Regularizing service of few employees and not others despite eligibility is violative of Article 14. Raman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520

Retired employees can't claim benefit of subsequent govt decision to increase retirement age. Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : AIR 2023 SC 4059

Retirement age can't be increased based on superannuation age in another similar post. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692 : AIR 2023 SC 4011

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – by enhancing the age of retirement, the requirement of substitute is delayed, remains bereft of logic, and that in any case, that does not provide a legal ground to force the state government to alter its policy only because such expectations are stated by the central government or because some other states have provided for such an age of discharge. (Para 11) State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – Looking to the very nature of the work and the structure of services, when the state government is the primary authority to decide the service conditions, no mandamus can be issued to the state government to change its policy, regardless of the proportion of the share of the central government in the expenditure burden. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – Supporting the High Court judgment, the amicus curiae contended that the Court can always issue relevant directions to ensure that fundamental rights and protections available to the citizens are not violated. The amicus also pointed out the retirement age of Anganwadi Workers was 65 years in many states and stressed that parity in employment is a reasonable expectation. Held, that as regards the scheme in question, it is clear that even while certain propositions/expectations had been laid by the central government, the existing statutory norms do not provide for uniform age limit for retirement of AWs/AHs; and it is for the state government to decide as regards the service conditions, including the age of discharge. (Para 10) State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – the decision cited by the learned counsel dealing with different eventualities and different principles do not provide any basis for issuance of a mandamus to the state government to change its policy, particularly when the policy is otherwise not shown to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality; rather the state is categorical in its submission that by way of this policy, the age of discharge of AWs/AHs is placed at par with those of the other employees of the state government and Public Sectors Undertakings in the state. (Para 11) State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers – the Supreme Court found fault with the High Court for issuing a mandamus to the State Government to change its policy regarding the retirement age of workers. The High Court reasoned that since 90% of expenses of the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme - under which the Anganwadi workers are engaged- are borne by the Central Government, there will not be a fundamental increase in the burden of the State if their retirement age is increased. Held, that this line of reasoning adopted by the High Court is unacceptable. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Retirement age of Anganwadi workers - the Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Tripura High Court which directed the State Government to raise the retirement age of Anganwadi workers from 60 years to 65 years. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Right of candidate to be considered in accordance with law – No vested right to advertised post Candidates had right to be considered for appointment to the post in accordance with law – Held, a law which enabled a candidate to get a post could not be changed to facilitate another group of persons, since the candidate acquired a vested right to be considered in accordance with law. (Para 24) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

SBI Officers Service Rules - When the first dismissal order against a person in service is in force, irrespective of all pending litigations or his age of superannuation, he cannot be deemed to be continuing in service. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42 : (2023) 3 SCC 203 : (2023) 1 SCR 893

Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. (Para 36) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

Selection Process - Reduction in cut-off marks to accommodate candidates whose seats were reserved due to horizontal reservation – Difference between qualification for making an application and eligibility criteria determined after examination is conducted – Present matter dealt with not the qualification for making an application, but the eligibility of candidates determined on the basis of cut-off marks – Held, eligibility determined after examination is conducted could not be disturbed. (Para 22) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Selection Process - Whether advertisement made pursuant to notification could be changed – No amendment duly introduced – Modification on the advice of state government – An advertisement made pursuant to a notification would bind the parties – Had all the trappings of a statutory prescription unless it became contrary to either a rule or an act – Held, any change could only be introduced by way of an amendment and nothing else. (Para 23) Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137 : (2023) 2 SCR 543

Seniority – Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets - Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list. Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant. (Para 7) Sunil v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 374 : AIR 2023 SC 2850 : (2023) 5 SCR 87

Service of Employees in Zilla Parishad should be counted for seniority when ZP has been absorbed by Municipal Corporation. Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik Shikshak v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 229 : (2023) 2 SCR 981

Suppression of Material Information' - Bare perusal of the details of the information sought in Column No. 12 indicates that, it was regarding arrest, detention and conviction by a Court in any offence. In case the answer was 'yes', then full particulars of the arrest or detention or conviction and sentence were required to be furnished. In case the answer was in the negative, no other particulars were required to be furnished. In the case on hand, in reply to the information asked the respondent gave the answer as “no”. As per the contents of the information sought and as per the answer given by the respondent, he is not required to furnish information regarding pending criminal case. Therefore, supply of such information by the respondent does not fall within the expression 'suppression of material information'. (Para 10) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking 2 years' cooling off period for retired judges' post-retirement appointments. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 753

Supreme Court grants notional seniority to private secretaries at Delhi High Court whose marks increased post re-evaluation of answer sheets. Sunil v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 374 : AIR 2023 SC 2850 : (2023) 5 SCR 87

Supreme Court imposes Rs. 50000 cost on Uttar Pradesh govt for filing frivolous appeal challenging gratuity to deceased employee. State of U.P. v. Priyanka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 95 : (2023) 3 SCC 619 : (2023) 1 SCR 385

Supreme Court sets aside order of CBDT passed to compulsorily retire a gazetted officer-any exercise of power that exceeds the parameters prescribed by law or is motivated on account of extraneous or irrelevant factors or is driven by malicious intent or is on the face of it, so patently arbitrary that it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, must be struck down -In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public. (Para 34) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165 : (2023) 2 SCR 30

Supreme Court upholds ante dating of seniority list; says no prejudice caused as separate quotas prescribed for degree & diploma holders. C. Anil Chandran v. M.K. Raghavan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 946

Supreme Court upholds disciplinary action against bank manager for lapses in loan approval; rejects defence of following superiors' instructions. Punjab National Bank v. M.L. Kalra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 733

Tenure post & appointment made on regular post on tenure basis different': Supreme Court allows lecturer's claim for pay protection. Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 649

The act of regularizing the services of only some employees and not of other entitled employees, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had found 65 employees entitled to regularization of employment but only 35 could be regularized, since only 35 posts were available. The Income Tax Department to regularize the services of the remaining entitled employees, from the date on which the services of other 35 employees were regularized, and to pay the back wages and other consequential benefits within a period of six months. (Para 8 & 13) Raman Kumar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 520

The appellant's claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is not tenable. It observed that the appellant was appointed as a substitute teacher in the pay scale of a primary teacher. In fact, when he filed the first round of proceedings, no plea was raised that he worked as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section. Even before the Tribunal, the argument was only about regularization. Before this Court too, no claim for regularization as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section was made. The Screening Committee having considered him, pursuant to the orders of this Court, had thought it fit to absorb him only as a primary teacher; the Screening Committee itself was pursuant to the orders of this Court; the records of his appointment as a substitute teacher admittedly show that he was only appointed as a substitute primary teacher; it is on the completion of three months as substitute primary teacher that he acquired temporary status and on absorption now he became entitled to certain benefits. (Para 29 - 32) Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806

The employer, if it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out from the range of appointment, as distinguished from the zone of consideration, without rhyme or reason. The employer-State being bound by Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason. (Para 15) Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882

The fact whether an employee after dismissal from service was gainfully employed is something which is within his special knowledge. Considering the principle incorporated in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the initial burden is on the employee to come out with the case that he was not gainfully employed after the order of termination. It is a negative burden. However, in what manner the employee can discharge the said burden will depend upon on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It all depends on the pleadings and evidence on record. Since, it is a negative burden, in a given case, an assertion on oath by the employee that he was unemployed, may be sufficient compliance in the absence of any positive material brought on record by the employer. (Para 7) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

The idea behind extension of retirement age of doctors was to take care of the emergency situation caused by shortage of doctors, which was resulting in affecting the studies or patient care. It was not merely to grant benefits to a particular class. (Para 19) Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710

The penalty imposed in this case is “reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I” as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further, to treat the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only. Since the charge of not conducting periodical inspection and the failure to complete the formalities for creating equitable mortgage are supported by evidence, we do not think that the penalty as imposed is disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of the Court. (Para 40) State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 719

The Supreme Court rejects the claim of employees to count the entire period of work-charged service for pension. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371 : AIR 2023 SC 2971 : (2023) 4 SCR 530

The Supreme Court rejects the claim of employees to count the entire period of work-charged service for pension. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371 : AIR 2023 SC 2971 : (2023) 4 SCR 530

The Supreme Court sets aside HC direction to increase the retirement age of Anganwadi workers as 65 years in tripura. State of Tripura v. Rina Purkayastha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 387

There are three different categories of employment, if not more, in the country. They are, (i) employment which is statutorily protected under labour welfare legislations, so as to prevent exploitation and unfair labour practices; (ii) employment which falls outside the purview of the labour welfare legislations and hence, governed solely by the terms of the contract; and (iii) employment of persons to civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State. Any Court or Tribunal adjudicating a dispute relating to conditions of service of an employee, should keep in mind the different parameters applicable to these three different categories of employment. (Para 23) Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vijay D. Kasbe, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321 : AIR 2023 SC 2042

To claim backwages, initial burden is on employee to establish that he was not gainfully employed during period of dismissal. (Para 7) Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 503

UGC pay scale: supreme court grants benefit of revised pay scale to two physical instructors despite subsequent karnataka g.o denying benefit. B.C. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 789 : AIR 2023 SC 4328

United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 - Disciplinary proceedings are considered to begin only after the service of a chargesheet and not show cause notice. (Para 20.1) UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 893

United Commercial Bank Officers' Regulations - Disciplinary proceedings begin only after service of the chargesheet. UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 893

Vacancy - Once clear and anticipated vacancies have been advertised, appointments can only be made on these vacancies. Vacancies which could not be anticipated before the date of advertisement, or the vacancies which did not exist at the time of advertisement, are the vacancies for the future i.e., next selection process. (Para 28) Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 997

VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired on achieving age of superannuation. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81 : AIR 2023 SC 792

VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired upon achieving the age of superannuation - They cannot claim parity with those who worked continuously, discharged their functions, and thereafter superannuated. VRS employees chose to opt and leave the service of the corporation; they found the VRS offer beneficial to them. (Para 39) Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 81 : AIR 2023 SC 792

When a selected candidate joins and then resigns, vacancy must be filled by a fresh selection process & not from the previous merit list. Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 812 : (2023) 10 SCC 54

Working for a long period on a contractual basis does not create a vested right to regularization. Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801

Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985

Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 - Rehabilitation scheme under Section 18 of the SICA, 1985 shall bind all the creditors including the unsecured creditors - Dues cannot be recovered post revival of sick company - Compelling unsecured creditors to accept the scaled down value of their dues would not be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the rehabilitation scheme is prepared under Section 18 of SICA, which has a binding effect on all the creditors. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208

SLP

After withdrawing SLP with liberty to file review in HC, is subsequent SLP against HC order maintainable? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 504

Slum Rehabilitation

The Slum Rehabilitation Authority has to act in terms of its own policies without allowing private arrangements to prevail. Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1070

Supreme Court declines to interfere with Delhi HC Judgment that jhuggis outside recognized clusters are not entitled to rehabilitation. Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555

Social Media

'Substantial progress made to prevent circulation of child porn, rape videos on social media': Supreme Court closes PIL. In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Specific Performance

'Should not have waited for 13 years': Supreme Court dismisses specific performance suit filed in 1999 for sale agreement of 1986. Hazari Lal v. Ramesh Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 994

Limitation for specific performance Suit runs from the date when the plaintiff had notice of refusal when no date is fixed for performance. Sabbir v. Anjuman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Specific Performance of re-conveyance deed can't be sought when plaintiff denies defendant's title in property. Madhavan v. Kanakavally, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1030

Specific Performance Suit - When no time is fixed for performance, limitation runs from the period when plaintiff had notice of refusal. A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 777 : AIR 2023 SC 4375

Specific Relief Act - Action to cancel an instrument under Section 31 is not action in rem. Asian Avenues Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Syed Shoukat Hussain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 369 : AIR 2023 SC 2185

Party can't claim time is essence of contract when specific performance of terms not done. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327 : (2023) 3 SCR 802

Section 28 Specific Relief Act - Time to deposit balance sale consideration cannot be extended as a matter of course. P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 151 : AIR 2023 SC 1224

Supreme Court bench delivers split verdict in civil appeal from specific performance suit. C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Adverse inference cannot be drawn against a plaintiff merely because he did not produce his bank passbook. Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 17 : AIR 2023 SC 282 : (2023) 4 SCC 239

Specific Relief Act, 1963

Specific Relief Act 1963 - In sale of immovable property there is no presumption that time is the essence of the contract, however, the court may infer performance in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident from the express terms of the contract, from the nature of the property, and from the surrounding circumstances. (Para 32) Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327 : (2023) 3 SCR 802

Specific Relief Act 1963 - When specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence does not arise - Time would not be of essence in a contract wherein the obligations of one party are dependent on the fulfillment of obligations of another party. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327 : (2023) 3 SCR 802

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 31 - Action instituted under Section 31 for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem. Asian Avenues Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Syed Shoukat Hussain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 369 : AIR 2023 SC 2185

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell -Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna delivers a split verdict on whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific relief. C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16 - Unless the plaintiff was called upon to produce the passbook either by the defendant or, the Court orders him to do so, no adverse inference can be drawn. Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 17 : AIR 2023 SC 282 : (2023) 4 SCC 239

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 28 - The Court cannot as a matter of course, allow extension of time for making payment of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree - The Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale-the power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and the Court has to pass an order as the justice may require. (Para 7) P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 151 : AIR 2023 SC 1224

Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017

Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 - the purpose of the Act was to extinguish the liabilities of the SBNs which have ceased to be legal tender with effect from 09.11.2016 - Section 4 is a complete code in itself - Section 4(1) empowers the Central Government to provide grace period - under Section 4(2), RBI is required to satisfy whether a person seeking to take benefit of grace period is entitled after satisfying that the reasons for the delay are genuine - Section 4(2) cannot be read independently - if the Central Government finds that there exists any class of persons to whom benefit under Section 4 is to be extended it has the discretion to do so - RBI does not have independent power under Section 4(2) to accept the demonetised notes beyond the period specified in the notification. [Para 299, 302 - 303] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Stamps Act, 1899

Stamps Act, 1899; Proviso to Section 27 - Registration Authorities are empowered under the proviso to Section 27 of the Indian Stamps Act, as inserted by the Andhra Pradesh Amending Act, 1988, to inspect the property, which is the subject matter of the instrument, make necessary enquiries and satisfy itself that the provisions of Section 27, which requires that all facts affecting the levy of Stamp Duty are fully and truly set forth in instrument, are complied with. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357 : (2023) 8 SCR 1098

Stay

Supreme Court doubts 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment on automatic stay vacation; refers to 5-judge Bench. High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1027

State Policy

Change of Govt. stand after change in power - The Courts are not concerned with the stand taken by the State at the relevant time and now. Suffice it to say that at the relevant time when the State police agency took a particular stand, accused No. 13 was in power and sitting Minister - The endeavor of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only. (Para 13) Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136 : (2023) 5 SCC 802

Succession

Hindu Succession Act - To decide shares of heirs, first step is to ascertain share of deceased in coparcenary property on date of death. Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : AIR 2023 SC 4180

Hindu Succession Act - Possession of property necessary for woman to claim rights under section 14. M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : AIR 2023 SC 4074

Succession Act, 1925

Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 and 68 - Principles to prove validity and execution of will – explained. (Para 10) Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809

Succession Act, 1925; Section 63 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 68 and 71 – A Will cannot be presumed to be valid merely because it is registered. (Para 9) Dhani Ram v. Shiv Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 862

Supreme Court

Chamber Judge refers appeal against Registrar's refusal to accept petition to court as matter involves interpretation of order. Sushil Kumar Yadav v. Deepak Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 954

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

'SCBA cannot assert right over the entire land allotted to SC': Supreme Court refuses to consider association's plea on judicial side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236

'Only CJI can assign cases': Supreme Court bench unhappy with another bench assigning a case to it. Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 181 : (2023) 5 SCC 364 : (2023) 2 SCR 219

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021; Section 2(1)(zg) - Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022; Rule 7 and 14(a) - Insisting that donor egg cannot be used for gestational surrogacy is prima facie against surrogacy rules. Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 872

Supreme Court Rules, 2013

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XII Rule 3 - Applications filed on the pretext of 'clarification / addition' while evading the recourse of review, ought not to be entertained and should be discouraged - Any alternation or addition to a judgment pronounced by Court can be made only to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising out of an accidental slip or omission - The power of Supreme Court under the Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules is limited and can only be exercised sparingly with due caution while confining itself within the parameters as described only to correct clerical/arithmetical mistakes or otherwise to rectify the accidental slip or omission. (Para 10-12) Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII Rule 1 - The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed against the Constitution Bench judgment which upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. Society for the Rights of Backward Communities v. Janhit Abhiyan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 441

Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII Rule 3 - Disposal of review petitions by circulation without any oral arguments - The decision of this Court in P N Eswara Iyer v Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680 does not warrant any reconsideration - The challenge to the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 lacks substance. P.T. Mohan v. Registrar Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 379

Surrogacy

Insisting that donor egg cannot be used for gestational surrogacy is prima facie against surrogacy rules. Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 872

Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (Orissa)

Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (Orissa); Section 15(b) - There is huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of their appropriate remedy. Record of rights was finalised in 1962. As admitted in the writ petition, objections were filed by the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest before that. Remedy, after publication of the final record of rights, was revision under Section 15(b) of the 1958 Act, to be filed within one year. No remedy was availed of. Nearly three decades after finalisation of record of rights, application was filed before the Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable after final record of rights is published. When no relief was granted by the Settlement Officer, the respondents kept quiet for 13 years before filing a civil suit in the year 2003. It was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2007. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008, which is the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal. The aforesaid facts show that the writ petition to claim relief was filed after 46 years of finalisation of record of rights, which was highly belated. Hence, the respondents were not entitled to any relief. (Para 34) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527

Synopsis

'Avoid bulky synopsis' : Supreme Court expresses disappointment at 60 page synopsis filed against 6 page hc order. Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709

Tax

Income Tax Act - To compute deduction under S. 80-IA, market value of electricity is the rate at which the state board supplies power. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1048

Gain from foreign exchange fluctuations can't be claimed as deduction under Section 80 HHC Income Tax Act. Shah Originals v. Commissioner of Income Tax-24, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1004

UP VAT Act - Definition of “goods” under Section 2(m) and 13(1)(f) includes taxable as well as exempted goods. Modi Naturals Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 976

UP VAT Act - Assessee entitled to claim full input tax credit on exempted goods produced as by-products or waste products during manufacturing of taxable goods. Modi Naturals Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 976

State amendments made to VAT Acts after GST came into effect are invalid. State of Telangana v. Tirumala Constructions, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927

Double taxation avoidance agreement cannot be enforced unless notified by the Centre under Section 90 Income Tax Act. Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) New Delhi v. Nestle, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 911

Services provided to IIT & NIT exempt from service tax: Supreme Court holds after interpreting 'or' & semicolon in exemption notification. Customs Central Excise and Service Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 885

S.153C Income Tax Act - Preceding 6 years period as regards 3rd party to be calculated from date when documents are assigned to concerned AO. Commissioner of Income Tax 14 v. Jasjit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 878

Material disclosed to the income tax settlement commission needn't be something which wasn't discovered by the assessing officer. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 822 : AIR 2023 SC 4743

Dividend income from an Indian entity's establishment in Oman having 'permanent establishment' status under DTAA not taxable in india. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : (2023) 10 SCC 9

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

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

Service Tax - Assessee cannot be penalised based on show-cause notice mentioning erroneous category of service. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II v. 3I Infotech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 675 : AIR 2023 SC 3915

Supreme Court recalls Judgment holding that no indirect taxes can be levied on duty free shops at airports. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai East v. Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 673

Interest income earned on deposits by clubs in banks which are corporate members taxable; principle of mutuality not applicable. Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660

Income tax settlement commission's purpose is to give assessee a chance to disclose undisclosed income to seek immunity. Shree Nilkanth Developers v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 648

The Supreme Court directs Centre to reconsider the reward paid to person who informed about tax evasion by news agency ANI media pvt ltd. Ketan Kantilal Modi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Special effects & 3d conversion services are not 'video-tape production' services under S. 65(120) of Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Person summoned under Section 69 CGST act cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.; only remedy is under Article 226. State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552

Income Tax Act - Completed / unabated assessments cannot be reopened by ao if no incriminating material is found during search. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532

Taxation Classification - Specific provision will prevail over general provision in a statute : Supreme Court in 'Maize Starch' case. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499

No service tax applicable on user development fee collected from passengers by Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad international airports. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457 : AIR 2023 SC 3039 : (2023) 9 SCC 294

Thief can't be assessed as 'owner' of stolen property under Section 69A Income Tax Act. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Income Tax Act - Carrier of Goods not an 'Owner'; Bitumen not a 'valuable article' under S. 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Credit note issued by automobile manufacturer to dealer, in consideration of replacement of defective part, attracts Sales Tax. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SPL), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Can tax exemption be claimed based on doctrine of legitimate expectation? The Supreme Court delivers a split verdict. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428 : (2023) 8 SCR 828

Prickly heat powder is not a 'medicine' for the purpose of sales tax in Kerala & Tamil Nadu. Heinz India Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 411 : AIR 2023 SC 2536

In 'Works Contract', assessee liable to pay service tax on service element & sales tax on goods transferred. CC and CE and ST, Noida v. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 393 : (2023) 7 SCC 259 : (2023) 7 SCR 977

Section 16-B of Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is not ultra vires any provision of law: Supreme Court reiterates. State of Himachal Pradesh v. A.J. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Loss on confiscation of smuggled items by DRI officials cannot be claimed as 'business loss' under Income Tax Act. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur v. Prakash Chand Lunia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 348

Income Tax Act - Assessing Officer can't make additions to completed assessments in absence of incriminating materials. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Transfer Pricing - High Courts not precluded from scrutinising ITAT's determination of Arm's Length Price. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Penalty leviable under S. 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is statutory and mandatory; commissioner/ao has no discretion. State of Gujarat v. Saw Pipes Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : AIR 2023 SC 2113 : (2023) 6 SCR 479

Mortein spray, harpic & lizol cleaner- not classifiable as 'insecticide' under KVAT; Dettol a 'Medicament'. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 306 : (2023) 4 SCR 63

S. 80-IB of Income Tax Act - Assessee not entitled to deduction under on profit derived from DEPB and duty drawback schemes. Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 299

Same activity can be taxed as 'goods' & 'services': Supreme Court upholds levy of service tax on “engineering design & drawings”. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v. Suzlon Energy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 298 : (2023) 4 SCR 324

Income Tax Act - For a company to be a "resident" in India, domicile or registration irrelevant; test is where de facto control lies. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291

Mere delay in remittance of TDS doesn't attract penalty under S. 271C Income Tax Act. US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 285 : (2023) 8 SCC 24

Section 263 Income Tax Act - Erroneous order of assessing officer causing prejudice to revenue is revisable by CIT. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paville Projects Pvt Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 282 : AIR 2023 SC 1950

Issuance of corporate guarantee on behalf of group companies without consideration is not a taxable service. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Memorandum issued by the government to deduct 4% TDS is not ultra vires to Tripura Sales Tax Act. State of Tripura v. Chandan Deb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : (2023) 3 SCR 1134

2015 amendment to Section 153C of Income Tax Act will apply to searches conducted prior to the date of amendment. Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274 : AIR 2023 SC 1922 : (2023) 2 SCR 756

Income Tax Act - Date of panchnama last drawn starting point of limitation for completing block assessment proceedings. Anil Minda v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Non-Service of assessment orders inconsequential if assesee had knowledge about them otherwise. Commercial Tax Officer v. Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 199 : (2023) 2 SCR 926

KVAT Act - Dealer claiming input tax credit must prove transaction beyond reasonable doubt. State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187 : (2023) 2 SCR 647

The Supreme Court grants relief to ITAT member whose appointment was delayed for not filing income tax returns. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

'Charitable purpose' not limited to 'free medical relief': Supreme Court on Kerala Building Tax exemption; Overrules 2014 Judgment. Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118

Tax authorities should maintain discipline to follow decisions of higher authorities. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 : AIR 2023 SC 781

'Premature for High Court to opine on tax evasion': Supreme Court sets aside HC order which quashed notice under Section 130 CGST Act. State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56

Income Tax Act - For block assessment, normals procedure not applicable; Interest can be levied without sec 158bc notice. K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54 : AIR 2023 SC 431 : (2023) 4 SCC 274 : (2023) 1 SCR 689

Exclusion of 'Old Indian Settlers' from definition of Sikkimese in Section 10(26AAA) Income Tax Act unconstitutional. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

Levy of additional special road taxes not a penalty, but regulatory: Supreme Court upholds Section 3A(3) HPMVT Act. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 27 : AIR 2023 SC 390

Goods manufactured on “diversification” must be “different”, “distinct” & “separate” in nature to claim exemption u/sec 4-A (5) UP Trade Tax Act. AMD Industries Ltd; v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : AIR 2023 SC 362 : (2023) 4 SCC 231 : (2023) 1 SCR 1035

Income Tax Act - Writ Petition can be entertained to examine if conditions to issue Section 148 notice are satisfied. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Non-banking finance & leasing companies not liable to pay interest tax on instalments paid under hire purchase agreement. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7 : AIR 2023 SC 239 : (2023) 1 SCR 317

Tamil Learning Act, 2006

Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006 - The State had issued circulars mandating the study of Tamil as a primary subject while allowing linguistic minorities the option to study their mother tongue. Held, the state's circulars should be executed in their entirety. Therefore, similar to other subjects, minimum qualifying marks should be stipulated for the mother tongue and reflected in students' mark sheets. Linguistic Minorities Forum of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Teacher

Physical training instructor a 'teacher' though not conducting classes within four walls. P.C. Modi v. Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1054

The Supreme Court allows teachers to file representation before the centre against selection criteria for national award for teachers. Girisha Chandra Mishra v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 541

Telecom

Deactivated mobile number not assigned to new user for 90 days, TRAI tells Supreme Court; Whatsapp data removed when account inactive for 45 days. Rajeswari v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 951

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

Temple

Kamakhya temple : Doloi samaj running temple affairs satisfactorily, says Assam Govt; Supreme Court allows present arrangement to continue. Kabindra Prasad Sarma v. Chief Secretary Government of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 993

Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Himachal Pradesh)

Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Himachal Pradesh); Section 118 - The whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings. Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose. The purpose is to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. A person who is not an agriculturist can only purchase land in Himachal Pradesh with the permission of the State Government. The Government is expected to examine from a case-to-case basis whether such permission can be given or not - By merely assigning rights to an agriculturist, who will be using the land for a purpose other than agriculture, would defeat the purpose of this Act. (Para 17) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449

Tort

'Can't direct govt to introduce bill': Supreme Court sets aside HC directions to make law commission statutory body & codify tort law. Union of India v. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630 : AIR 2023 SC 3827

Transfer of Property Act 1882

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Difference between 'mortgage by conditional sale' and 'sale with condition of retransfer' – Explained. (Para 25) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 8 - In the absence of an express or implied indication, a transfer of land would pass to the transferee all things attached to the earth, including the plant and machinery embedded on the land - Merely because no express reference to plant and machinery was contained in the Recital Clause of the Sale Deed, it cannot mean that the interest in the plant and machinery which stood attached to the land which was scheduled in the Deed, was not conveyed to the vendee. Therefore, the value of plant and machinery must also be ascertained for computation of stamp duty - Only such plant and machinery, which was permanently embedded to the earth and answered the description of the immovable property, as defined in law, can be said to have been conveyed under the deed. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357 : (2023) 8 SCR 1098

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - A Will or General Power of Attorney (“GPA”) cannot be recognized as title documents or documents conferring right in any immovable property - the non-execution of any document by the GPA holder consequent to it, renders the said GPA useless. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : AIR 2023 SC 2754 : (2023) 7 SCC 361

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - an Agreement to Sell is neither a document of title nor a deed of transfer of property by sale. Therefore, it does not confer any absolute title over the Property. However, the factors such as entering into an Agreement to Sell, payment of entire sale consideration and being put in possession by the transferor, shows that the de-facto possessory rights based on the part performance of the Agreement to Sell. The possessory right is not liable to be disturbed by the transferer and the transferer's entry into the Suit Property subsequently was as a licencee and not as the owner of Property. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : AIR 2023 SC 2754 : (2023) 7 SCC 361

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - In connection with the general power of attorney and the will so executed, the practice, if any, prevalent in any State or the High Court recognizing these documents to be documents of title or documents conferring right in any immovable property is in violation of the statutory law. Any such practice or tradition prevalent would not override the specific provisions of law which require execution of a document of title or transfer and its registration so as to confer right and title in an immovable property of over Rs.100/- in value. Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 479 : AIR 2023 SC 2754 : (2023) 7 SCC 361

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 54 - Sale deed - Normally, on the execution and registration of a sale deed containing recitals regarding the payment of consideration and delivery of possession, the sale is complete even if the sale price is not paid and, therefore, it will not be possible to cancel the sale deed in its entirety. However, the exception to the said rule is the practice of ta khubzul badlain. The use of the expression ta khubzul badlain in a sale deed by itself will not be determinative of the true nature of the transaction. It cannot be read in isolation. All the terms and conditions and recitals in the document will have to be considered to decide the real nature of the transaction. (Para 13) Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 582

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 58(c) - A transaction cannot be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale. (Para 25.3) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Transfer of Property Act 1882; Section 60 - Right to redemption of mortgage- Unless the equity of redemption is so extinguished, a second suit for redemption by the mortgagor, if filed within the period of limitation, is not therefore barred. (Para 61, 62) Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Principle of Estoppel - Though the release deed executed by the son was with respect to only a spes successonis right, his conduct of relinquishment will bind his sons through estoppel-despite the fact that what was purported to be released by Shri Chandran, was a mere spec successonis or expectation his conduct in transferring/releasing his rights for valuable consideration, would give rise to an estoppel. The effect of the estoppel cannot be warded off by persons claiming through the person whose conduct has generated the estoppel. (Para 23) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65 : AIR 2023 SC 659 : (2023) 1 SCR 261

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 51 - Section 51 applies in terms to a transferee who makes improvements in good faith on a property believing himself to be its absolute owner -In order to attract the Section the occupant of the land must have held possession under colour of title, his possession must not have been by mere possession of another but adverse to the title of the true owner and he must be under the bone fide belief that he has secured good title to the property in question and is the owner thereof - Section 51 gives only statutory recognition to the above three things I it was after encroaching upon the land in question and ignoring the absence of any title that the defendant made structures thereon at his own risk -Once it is so found, the defendant cannot be treated as a 'transferee' within the meaning of the TP Act and for the purpose of Section 51, TP Act. (Para 7-11) Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 78 : AIR 2023 SC 894

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 52 - Lis Pendens - It is a well-nigh settled position that wherever TP Act is not applicable, such principle in the said provision of the said Act, which is based on justice, equity and good conscience is applicable in a given similar circumstance, like Court sale etc. - Transfer of possession pendente lite will also be transfer of property within the meaning of Section 52 and, therefore, the import of Section 52 of the TP Act is that if there is any transfer of right in immovable property during the pendency of a suit such transfer will be non est in the eye of law if it will adversely affect the interest of the other party to the suit in the property concerned. We may hasten to add that the effect of Section 52 is that the right of the successful party in the litigation in regard to that property would not be affected by the alienation, but it does not mean that as against the transferor the transaction is invalid. (Para 16) Shivshankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261 : AIR 2023 SC 1780 : (2023) 6 SCR 359

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 6 (a) - spes successonis - A living man has no heir- Release deed executed by son relinquishing his share in the self-acquired property of father has no effect- A person who may become the heir and entitled to succeed under the law upon the death of his relative would not have any right until succession to the estate is opened up. Unlike a co-parcener who acquires right to joint family property by his mere birth, in regard to the separate property of the Hindu, no such right exists. (Para 10) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65 : AIR 2023 SC 659 : (2023) 1 SCR 261

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 6 (a) -Transfer by an heir apparent being mere spes successonis is ineffective to convey any right. By the mere execution of Release Deed, in other words, in the facts of this case, no transfer took place-This is for the simple reason that the transferor, namely, the father of the appellants did not have any right at all which he could transfer or relinquish. (Para 14) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 65 : AIR 2023 SC 659 : (2023) 1 SCR 261

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 106 - In order to attract the application of Section 106, which requires 6 months' notice for termination of lease, the burden is on the Tenant to prove that manufacturing activity was being carried on in the leased Premises. A mere statement that manufacturing activity was being done would not suffice, the Tenant must explain the nature of work being done in factory shed. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827

Tribunal

Tribunal cannot direct framing of policy by Government: Supreme Court sets aside AFT direction on JAG. Union of India v. AIR Commodore NK Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1058

Fill vacancies in Central Govt Industrial Tribunals by August 31. Labour Law Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 536

Can HC exercise jurisdiction over a tribunal situated outside its territorial limits? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : (2023) 5 SCC 706 : (2023) 2 SCR 59

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules - In 2019, the Supreme Court struck down the 2017 Tribunal Rules in the case Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank and directed that the appointments should be made as per the provisions of the parent statute. Later, in the 2020 Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court dealt with the subsequent Rules framed by the Centre in 2020 in relation to tribunal appointments. In July 2021, the Supreme Court clarified in the Madras Bar Association case, that all appointments made before 4 April 2021 would be governed by the parent statutes. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Trust Act, 1882

Trust Act, 1882; Section 88 - Advantage gained by fiduciary - The Bench has upheld the NCLAT's order whereby the Successful Resolution Applicant was declared ineligible in terms of Trusts Act, since he had submitted two resolution plans, one in individual capacity and one in the capacity of Managing Trustee of the Trust. M.K. Rajagopalan v Dr. Periasamy Pal ani Gounder, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Uniform Civil Code

States have power to constitute committees on Uniform Civil Code. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 22

United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976

University

The Governor as a Chancellor of a State University must act independently and not on aid & advice of the Council of Ministers. Dr. Premchandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

'Unwarranted intervention of Kerala Govt' : Supreme Court quashes re-appointment of Kannur University Vice Chancellor. Dr. Premchandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as repealed in 1999 - There was a serious dispute with regard to taking of possession of the surplus land. There was a delay of about seven years in filing the first writ petition from the date when possession was allegedly taken by the State, after publication of the vesting notification. No documentary evidence such as a Khasra or Khatauni of the period between alleged date of taking possession and filing of the first writ petition was filed by the original petitioner. In the earlier two rounds of litigation, the High Court refrained from deciding the issue of possession of the surplus land even though that issue had arisen directly between the parties. Infraction of the prescribed statutory procedure for taking possession cannot be the sole basis to discard State's claim of possession, when it is stated to have been taken long before the date the issue is raised, held, that the High Court should have refrained from deciding the issue with regard to taking of actual possession of the surplus land prior to the cutoff date specified in the Repeal Act, 1999. Instead, the writ petitioner should have been relegated to a suit. (Para 35) State of U.P. v. Ehsan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; Section 2(q) - Meaning and import of the term 'vacant land' – the interpretation, spirit and object of the Ceiling Act, as it was envisaged at the time of its enactment, when juxtaposed against the regressive impact experienced in different States which is indicated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Repeal Act, invite an authoritative determination of all the related issues by a Larger Bench. (Para 37) Kewal Court Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 867

Value Added Tax Act, 2003

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

Video Conferencing

No High Court should deny access to VC facility for hybrid hearings; free wifi must be given to bar members. Sarvesh Mathur v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 871

Virtual hearing facilities can't be restricted to advocates / litigants above a particular age. Sarvesh Mathur v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 871

Virtual Hearing

'Use Technology to facilitate virtual hearings, don't waste money spent on technical upgradation' : Supreme Court to all Courts, Tribunals. PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Wage

'Basic wage' under epf act, cannot be equated with 'minimum wage' under Minimum Wages Act. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. G4s Security Services (India) Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Waqf

Conducting survey is prerequisite before declaring property as wakf. Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 454 : AIR 2023 SC 2769 : (2023) 7 SCR 388

Section 52A of Wakf Act cannot apply to tenants who took possession before enactment of this provision. P.V. Nidhish v. Kerala State Waqf Board, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 383 : (2023) 4 SCR 547

Beneficiary of waqf, not being trustee or co-owner, can claim title of waqf property by adverse possession. Sabir Ali Khan v. Syed Mohd. Ahmad Ali Khan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 323 : (2023) 6 SCR 930

Wildlife

Kuno cheetah deaths - Supreme Court requests centre to take into consideration suggestions of expert committee in 'right earnest'. Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 616

Declarants of exotic live species as per 2020 MOEFCC advisory immune from prosecution under Wild Life Act & future amendments. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Time Limit under Rule 4(2) of Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules cannot be relaxed. Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215 : (2023) 2 SCR 1081

The Supreme Court forms a committee to oversee transfer/import of wild animals in India. Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 164 : AIR 2023 SC 1368

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Individuals who have made a declaration of ownership of 'exotic live species' in accordance with the advisory issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change are immune from prosecution - Since it has been held that Advisory was an Amnesty Scheme and declarants are immune from prosecution, the same would obviously mean that declarants are immune from prosecution or action under any future laws and amendments incorporated in the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972. Swetab Kumar v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972 - Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - As per Rule 4(2), application/declaration under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 for ownership certificate has to be made within a period of 180 days from the date of commencement of the Rules, 2003. Looking to the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A and the object and purpose for which Rules, 2003 has been enacted the period of 180 days prescribed under Rule 4(2) has to be construed and considered as mandatory, otherwise the object and purpose of the Act, 1972 and the Rules, 2003 shall be frustrated. (Para 5) Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215 : (2023) 2 SCR 1081

Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972 - Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - Once a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or wildlife animal article, fails to file such declaration and/or fails to make any application within the stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) then the bar/rigour under Section 40 shall be applicable and the ownership of such wildlife animal article of which the declaration is not made shall vest in the Government/forest department. (Para 5.1) Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 215 : (2023) 2 SCR 1081

Will

Will can't be proved as per Section 69 Evidence Act by a random witness saying he saw an attesting witness signing it. Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 998

Will can't be presumed to be valid merely because it is registered. Dhani Ram v. Shiv Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 862 : AIR 2023 SC 4787

Principles to prove validity & execution of will : Supreme Court explains. Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809 : AIR 2023 SC 4680

Will can't be presumed to be genuine merely because it is aged more than 30 years old. Ashutosh Samanta v. Ranjan Bala Dasi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 190 : AIR 2023 SC 1422 : (2023) 2 SCR 237

Wikipedia

Adjudicating authorities especially Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) extensively referred to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their conclusion - While we expressly acknowledge the utility of these platforms which provide free access to knowledge across the globe, but we must also sound a note of caution against using such sources for legal dispute resolution - These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowdsourced and usergenerated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information - The courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources. (Para 14) Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 : AIR 2023 SC 498 : (2023) 1 SCR 1123

Wikipedia not completely dependable': Supreme Court cautions Courts and adjudicating authorities. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 : AIR 2023 SC 498 : (2023) 1 SCR 1123

Woman

'Woman not a chattel, has identity of her own; marriage won't take away her identity': Supreme Court strikes down income tax provision. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717

Words and Phrases

“In relation to” - The use of the phrase “in relation to” in statutes is with a view to bring one person or thing into association or connection with another person or thing. The direct or indirect nature of such association or connection depends on the context. (Para 11.1) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2023 SC 618 : (2023) 4 SCC 312 : (2023) 1 SCR 931

Largesse - Government actions aimed at ensuring the well-being of citizens cannot be perceived through the lens of a 'largess'. The use of such terminology belittles the sanctity of the social contract that the 'people of India' entered into with the State to protect and safeguard their interests - Terming all actions of government, ranging from social security benefits, jobs, occupational licenses, contracts and use of public resources – as government largesse results in doctrinal misconceptions. The reason is that this conflates the State's power with duty. (Para 11) Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. v. Kerala Ayurvedic Co Operative Society Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 6 : AIR 2023 SC 314 : (2023) 1 SCR 473

Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013

Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 – Rule 5(v) – Pension - Qualifying service for pension – Service rendered as work charge – Dispute over counting of the period of work charged services for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits and the length of pensionable service - Entire service as work-charged employee cannot be counted towards pension – The work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension or quantum of pension. Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371 : AIR 2023 SC 2971 : (2023) 4 SCR 530

Workman

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Commission can be entertained only if there is a substantial question of law. Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : AIR 2023 SC 4438

Supreme Court asks UP Power Discom to pay over Rs 10 Lakhs as backwages to workman; Imposes cost of Rs 2 Lakhs. Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Workmen Compensation Act - Functional disability & not physical disability the determining factor to claim total disablement. Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543 : AIR 2023 SC 3478 : (2023) 8 SCC 217

'Uncontested claim of wife regarding husband's income be taken as gospel truth' : Supreme Court increases compensation for deceased workman. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - the objective of the Act is dispensation of social justice - When the wife of the deceased employee deposed his income on oath and the Employer admitted the same, then by no stretch of imagination the Deputy Labour Commissioner could have awarded lower compensation on minimum wage rate - the Supreme Court took an empathetic view and instead of remanding the matter back to High Court for re-consideration, it has itself awarded enhanced compensation to the deceased's family. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - Unchallenged statement of wife regarding deceased husband's monthly wage to be accepted as gospel of truth. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923; Section 2(1)(l) – It is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant (i.e., workman) has incurred total disablement. Thus, if the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement, the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act. The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause. Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement. (Para 28) Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543

Workmen Compensation Act, 1923; Section 20 (1) and (2) - The insurer of the offending vehicle having filed the written statement seems to have not cross examined the claimants and their witnesses. Thus, the claim lodged by the claimants seeking for compensation would not partake the character of a “contested claim” as stipulated under the notification issued by the appropriate Government under the W.C. Act. Mamta Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 486

Writ Petition

Writ petition against an award passed by a facilitation council under MSMED Act not maintainable. India Glycols v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 992

Once the High Court admits a writ petition it cannot refuse to consider prayer for interim relief citing alternate remedy. Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 925

Writ petition not maintainable when civil suit for same relief was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527 : AIR 2023 SC 3425

'Complete waste of time: Supreme Court imposes cost on litigant who filed writ petition after review was dismissed. K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Z+ Security

Highest Z+ security should be provided to mukesh ambani & family throughout India & abroad; cost to be borne by Ambanis. Union of India v. Bikash Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 147