Supreme Court Monthly Digest August 2023

SUBJECT WISE INDEXAbkari ActPerson receiving information of crime or detecting the occurrence can investigate it. Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703Abortion Woman alone has the right over her body; she's the ultimate decision maker on abortion. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680‘Forcing woman to have child born out of rape against constitutional philosophy’: Supreme Court allows survivor’s plea for abortion. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680'What is happening in Gujarat High Court? We don't appreciate HC's counterblast to our Order': Supreme Court in abortion case. XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680Adverse PossessionAdverse Possession - Principles Summarised. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693When adverse possession is claimed over government land, Courts must act with greater care. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2023 INSC 693Adverse RemarksRemarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary which is further qualified by, being necessary for proper adjudication of the case at hand - Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint - Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve - Such remarks, “due to the great power vested in our robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”; and may “deter officers and various personnel in carrying out their duty”- "Adverse remarks, of serious nature, upon the character and/ or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly”. (Para 17-18) State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721 : 2023 INSC 773AdvocateAdvocate 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) 635The Supreme Court vacated a stay order in a 16-year-old criminal appeal as it pulled up the appellant-lawyer for seeking repeated adjournments. Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 608Litigants 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 : 2023 INSC 659Agricultural LandArgument that merely because the land has a few coconut trees, that will not make it an agricultural land, as in Kerela, coconut trees are found everywhere even in the urban residential properties and their presence itself will not make the land an agricultural land. Held, the land in question undoubtedly has coconut trees on it, most of them are very old but fruit bearing, and moreover in revenue records, the land is described as “theaattam” i.e., “garden”. This would mean that the land in question may be put for agricultural use. Theoretically, it is possible that a land which is recorded as “theaattam” may not be actually put for agricultural use. All the same, in the present case, the overwhelming evidence which has been duly appreciated by the three Courts below clearly prove that the land was indeed an agricultural land. Therefore, find no reason to take a different view at this stage. (Para 7) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : 2023 INSC 774Allotment of PlotsAllotment of Plots - E-auction - When the HSIIDC as the authority deciding to allot industrial plots had laid down a particular procedure which will ensure fairness and transparency amongst the participants, they cannot depart from the notified process particularly when there was no technical report available with the authority to confirm technical fault in the e-auction process. When such a departure from the laid down norm is made, it has to be declared to be arbitrary and unfair. Since the decision is not founded on any acceptable reasoning, it would suffer from the vice of irrationality and unreasonableness. (Para 24) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Ashish Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 654ArbitrationDissenting 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 : 2023 INSC 768Supreme 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 : 2023 INSC 751Arbitration 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 : 2023 INSC 742The 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 : 2023 INSC 708BailSupreme Court...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest August 2023

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags