Supreme Court Monthly Digest- April 2022 With Nominal And Statute/Subject Wise Index

Administrative Law - CBDT Departmental Examination - Grace mark policy - The benefit of the grace marks was not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category - Only in a case where any candidate belonging to any category is marginally failing to pass the examination, he is/was to be allowed the grace marks so as to allow him to obtain the minimum passing marks required and that too by allowing upto five grace marks - It was never meant for a person, who has passed in his own category. Union of India v. Mukesh Kumar Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 420

Administrative Law - Every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide - For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist. (Para 13, 16) Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Administrative Law - For holding the action of the Executive to be arbitrary, there must be a factual basis. (Para 13) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Administrative Law - The requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate. (Para 23) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986 - Appeal against Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment setting aside the Full bench judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal - Dismissed - We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on the procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364

Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986; Section 26 - Once there is a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman and the third Member/Chairman was required to give his own decision upon such a reference. However, the matter is not required to be referred to the Full Bench. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364

Amendment - Whenever the challenge is to the amended provisions, the scope of enquiry, inter alia, ought to be as to whether the same is in consonance with the Principal Act, achieve the object and purpose of the Principal Act and are otherwise just, rational and reasonable. (Para 21) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Anganwadi workers (AWW) and Anganwadi helpers (AWH) - It is high time that the Central Government and State Governments take serious note of the plight of AWWs and AWHs who are expected to render such important services to the society - They are being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central Government. (Para 20) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which dismissed appeal against interim award of the Arbitral tribunal holding that JDIL was not a party to the arbitration agreement and must be deleted from the array of parties - Allowed - The interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated because of: (i) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the application for discovery and inspection filed by ONGC; (ii) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to determine the legal foundation for the application of the group of companies doctrine; and (iii) The decision of the arbitral tribunal that it would decide upon the applications filed by ONGC only after the plea of jurisdiction was disposed of. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ; Section 16, 34, 37 - An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34 - In the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, the court must have due deference to the grounds which have weighed with the tribunal in holding that it lacks jurisdiction having regard to the object and spirit underlying the statute which entrusts the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction - The decision of the tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction is not conclusive because it is subject to an appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(a). However, in the exercise of this appellate power, the court must be mindful of the fact that the statute has entrusted the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction with the purpose of facilitating the efficacy of arbitration as an institutional mechanism for the resolution of disputes. (Para 34 - 39) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Arbitration application decided and disposed of after a period of four years by Telangana High Court - Very sorry state of affairs - Registrar General of the High Court directed to submit a detailed report/statement pointing out how many Section 11 applications are pending before the High Court and from which year. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - The arbitration applications for appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated. (Para 2) Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16 - Party taking the plea of absence of jurisdiction is required to establish the grounds on which it set about to establish its plea. (Para 49) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 17 - Appeal against Delhi HC order which confirmed the interim order passed by Arbitral Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit the rental amount from March, 2020 onwards and up to December, 2021 - Partly allowed - No order could have been passed by the Tribunal by way of interim measure on the applications filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act in a case where there is a serious dispute with respect to the liability of the rental amounts to be paid, which is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or considered by the Arbitral Tribunal - The appellant will therefore have to deposit the entire rental amount except the period for which there was complete closure due to lockdown. Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson and Company Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 - Group of companies doctrine - An arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties - A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory - In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the contract. (Para 18, 23, 26) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7) - Arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component - The word sum used under Section 31(7) includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims. Indian Oil Corporation v. U.B. Engineering, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Appeal against Punjab & Haryana HC order which allowed to proceed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount - Order passed by the High Court permitting the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre­deposit of 75% of the awarded amount is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Arbitral award can be set aside by the court if the court finds the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award - The award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence. (Para 15) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The court may condone delay of a period up to thirty days in filing of the objections if it is satisfied that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause from making an application under Section 34(1) of the Act. (Para 10) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 37 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 37 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause - A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved. (Para 17) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Section 15 - AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court martial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever. It would be permissible to interfere with such a finding when it involves a wrong decision on a question of law - AFT would be justified in allowing an appeal against conviction by a court­martial when there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice. (Para 27) Union of India v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Arms Act, 1950; Section 27 - Supreme Court Patna High Court judgment which modified the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants- accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code to Section 324 IPC and confirming their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Bail - Appeal against Allahabad HC granting bail to an accused - Allowed - Order of High Court granting bail to co-accused was earlier set aside - Reasons which have weighed with this Court in cancelling the bail which was granted to the co-accused would equally apply to the case of the first respondent which also arises out of the same first information report and incident. Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki v. Raju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Bar Council of India Rules - Provisional enrolment - Persons engaged in other employments can be permitted to provisionally enrol with the concerned Bar Council and to appear in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and that upon clearing the AIBE, they can be given a period of 6 months to decide whether to join legal profession or continue with the other job. Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 414

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 56 - In terms of the principal part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, the interest would be awarded at the rate of 6 per cent. The award of interest at 9 per cent would be attracted only if the matter was covered by the proviso to the said Section 56 - Wherever a statute specifies or regulates the interest, the interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute - Wherever a statute, on the other hand, is silent about the rate of interest and there is no express bar for payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds. (Para 18-19) Union of India v. Willowood Chemicals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398

Circumstantial Evidence - Five golden principles regarding appreciation of evidence when the case of the prosecution hinges on the circumstantial evidence discussed. (Para 22) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Civil Suit - The rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences i.e., on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day when he initiated the proceedings, therefore, rights of the parties have to be examined as on the said day. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Section 3 - What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government were the coal mines - The ownership of the land was immaterial. If the land fell within the definition of the expression "mine" under the Nationalisation Act, the same stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1). (Para 13) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 350

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Sections 2(h) and 3(1) - Focus is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is - Even the lands and buildings used solely for the location of the management, sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff were also included in the definition of the word "mine". (Para 15) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 350

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 41 Rule 33 - The Rule clothes the appellate court with an extra ordinary power, which however is a rare jurisdiction. It is to reach justice in the special facts of a case. It is not an ordinary rule to be applied across the board in all the appeals. In fact, the principle is interalia no doubt that even if there is no appeal by any of the parties in the proceedings, an order can be passed in his favour in the appeal carried by the other side. (Para 13) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 374

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security and the appellant had no right to encash it - In essence, the suit attempts to frustrate the possibility of the appellant initiating action under the provision of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque - Such reliefs are barred by law - Revisional court was just in allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 64(2) and Order XXI Rule 58 - To get the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the CPC, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. (Para 4) Dokala Hari Babu v. Kotra Appa Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 342

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 159 - Mere delay to send FIR to jurisdictional magistrate cannot be sole factor to reject prosecution's case. (Para 26, 27) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. (Para 25) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - First Information Report - A F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopedia of events. (Para 36) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2 (wa) - 'Victim' and 'complainant / informant' - It is not always necessary that the complainant / informant is also a 'victim', for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an 'informant', and similarly, a 'victim' need not be the complainant or informant of a felony. (Para 24) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 2 (wa) - Victim's right to be heard - A 'victim' within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He / She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision - Where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. (Para 24, 25) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - No conviction could be based on the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused by leading independent and cogent evidence- When the accused makes inculpatory and exculpatory statements, the inculpatory part of the statement can be taken aid of to lend credence to the case of prosecution. (Para 23) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 (2) - Remission - An opinion accompanied by inadequate reasoning would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) - Relevant factors include assessing (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family - If the opinion of the presiding judge does not comply with the requirements of Section 432 (2) or if the judge does not consider the relevant factors for grant of remission that have been laid down in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595, the government may request the presiding judge to consider the matter afresh. (Para 21-24) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 (2) - Remission - It cannot be said that the opinion of the presiding judge is only a relevant factor, which does not have any determinative effect on the application for remission. The purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission - This is not to say that the appropriate government should mechanically follow the opinion of the presiding judge. (Para 21-22) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail - This discretion is not unfettered - bail must be granted after the application of a judicial mind, following well established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner. (Para 28) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - A recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that "the facts and the circumstances" have been considered - Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice. (Para 13) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against bail granted by Allahabad HC to murder accused - Allowed -This Court on account of the factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims' right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail, without depriving the Accused of his legitimate right to seek enlargement on bail on relevant considerations. Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against Rajasthan HC order granting bail to appellant accused of rape of his niece - Allowed - The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic, and does not suggest any application of mind. Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appellate Court required to analyze whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail looks at whether supervening circumstances have occurred warranting cancellation. (Para 11-15) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - No accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 40) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Parameters which must be considered while granting bail discussed - certain important factors that are always considered, inter­alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused - At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. (Para 8-10) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Principles that a Court must bear in mind while deciding an application for grant of bail discussed- A court should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. (Para 30-33) Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464 - Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Mere non-framing of a charge under Section 149 on face of charges framed against appellant would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to them - Mere defect in language, or in narration or in the form of charge would not render conviction unsustainable, provided the accused is not prejudiced thereby - If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned. [Referred to Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 546] (Para 7) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - If a complaint was filed within the period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code from the commission of the offence but the cognizance was taken after the expiry of such period, the terminal point for the prescribed period for the purposes of Section 468, was shifted from the date of taking cognizance to the filing of the complaint or initiation of proceedings so that a complaint ought not to be discarded for reasons beyond the control of the complainant or the prosecution. (Para 14) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings - The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. (Para 30, 39) Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the asking - In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence - Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent on hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. (Para 26-39) Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138,139 - The Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption - In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint - Quashing proceedings must not become an expedition into the merits of factual dispute, so as to conclusively vindicate either the complainant or the defence. (Para 16, 11, 13) Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The parameters for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the criminal proceedings under S.482 CrPC discussed -To non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court. Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 205 (2), 251 and 317 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; Section 138 - The judgment in M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim Apparels Ltd.: (2001) 7 SCC 401 does not deal with a claim for blanket exemption from personal appearance - Observations therein essentially co-relate with the facts of the said case - In appropriate cases the Magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel - Such discretion needs to be exercised only in rare instances and there ought to be good reasons for dispensing with the presence. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Bhanuj Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 205 (2), 251 and 317 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; Section 138 - SLP against Punjab & Haryana HC judgment which refused petitioner's claim of blanket exemption from personal experience in case under Section 138 NI Act -Dismissed - It is difficult to appreciate that in the case of the present nature, the petitioners seek to avoid appearance even once in terms of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Bhanuj Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - In respect of criminal charges, an accused can be tried by a Court of law and not merely on the basis of the report of the Commissioner under the Inquiry Act. Such a report is not conclusive and an independent action has to be taken by the State or by the victims against the Organizers before the competent court of law to prove the criminal offences said to be committed by certain accused. (Para 49) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - The Commission under the Act shall be appointed either by the Executive or by the Legislature but not by the Judiciary in terms of the provisions of Inquiry Act. (Para 46, 50) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Companies Act, 1956 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Appeal against NCLAT order which dismissed appeals against NCLT order denying relief to appellant workmen/employees with regard to their claim relating to salary, which they claimed for the period involving CIRP- Partly allowed - (i) That the wages/salaries of the workmen/employees of the Corporate Debtor for the period during CIRP can be included in the CIRP costs provided it is established and proved that the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern during the CIRP and that the concerned workmen/employees of the corporate debtor actually worked during the CIRP and in such an eventuality, the wages/salaries of those workmen/employees who actually worked during the CIRP period when the resolution professional managed the operations of the corporate debtor as a going concern, shall be paid treating it and/or considering it as part of CIRP costs and the same shall be payable in full first as per Section 53(1)(a) of the IB Code; (ii) considering Section 36(4) of the IB code and when the provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund are kept out of the liquidation estate assets, the share of the workmen dues shall be kept outside the liquidation process and the concerned workmen/employees shall have to be paid the same out of such provident fund, gratuity fund and pension fund, if any, available and the Liquidator shall not have any claim over such funds. Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Companies Act, 1956 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Legislative History with respect to workmen/employee's dues towards the wages/salaries including the amount due and payable towards provident fund, gratuity and pension fund - discussed. (Para 8.2) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Companies Act, 2013; Section 170 - Companies Act, 1956; Section 394 (1)(a) - Amalgamation - Amalgamation is unlike the winding up of a corporate entity. In the case of amalgamation, the outer shell of the corporate entity is undoubtedly destroyed; it ceases to exist. Yet, in every other sense of the term, the corporate venture continues – enfolded within the new or the existing transferee entity. In other words, the business and the adventure lives on but within a new corporate residence, i.e., the transferee company. It is, therefore, essential to look beyond the mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment proceedings - Upon amalgamation, the cause of action or the complaint does not per se cease – depending of course, upon the structure and objective of enactment - The quest of legal systems and courts has been to locate if a successor or representative exists in relation to the particular cause or action, upon whom the assets might have devolved or upon whom the liability in the event it is adjudicated, would fall. (Para 18) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 2 v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Companies Act, 2013; Section 188 - Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015; Regulation 23 - Related parties abstained from voting in special resolution which approved a related party transaction - They voted in Extraordinary GM convened for rescinding the said resolution - SAT held the bar of voting as per Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 on related parties operated only at the time of entering into a contract or arrangement, i.e., when the resolution dated 15.07.2014 was passed; and therein the said related parties indeed abstained from voting. It found no fault in the said parties voting in the recalling/rescinding of the said resolution - The view, as taken by the Appellate Tribunal, in the given set of facts and circumstances of the present case, appears to be a plausible view of the matter. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. R.T. Agro Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - A mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition would not mean that the view of the High Court has been approved by this Court. (Para 37) State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - Classification Test - When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one - When the differentiation is clearly distinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets satisfied. Social, revenue and economic considerations are certainly permissible parameters in classifying a particular group - Courts could not act like appellate authorities especially when a classification is introduced by way of a policy decision clearly identifying the group of beneficiaries by analysing the relevant materials - When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided. (Para 14-18) State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - The differential treatment for different classes would not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The only requirement would be, as to whether such a classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. (Para 31) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(g) - Right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration. (Para 40-41) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Where life and personal liberty have been violated, the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the statute is of no consequence. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high. (Para 21) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 32, 226 - Infringement of Article 21 may be an individual case such as by the State or its functionaries; or by the Organizers and the State; or by the Organizers themselves have been subject matter of consideration before this Court in a writ petition under Article 32 or before the High Court under Article 226. (Para 22) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21, 39A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 304 - Right to a fair trial - Right to fair and speedy trial applies as much to the victim as the accused - While expediting the trial, it is imperative on the Court to see that the due procedure is followed during the course of trial. (Para 33) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Appeal against Uttarakhand HC order which disposed a writ petition filed without deciding it on merits - Allowed and remanded - The order is bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of judicial review and interference of the courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality discussed. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to protecting the personal liberty persons who have demonstrated that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law. (Para 16) Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petition, there is a duty cast upon the High Court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A - High threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State. (Para 25, 15) Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 300A - Requirement of public purpose is a pre-condition and right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in Article 300-A. (Para 21) Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Remission - The Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision is arbitrary in nature. The Court is empowered to direct the government to reconsider its decision. (Para 14) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Supreme Court allowed writ petition filed by a convict whose application for remission was rejected - Special Judge, Durg directed to provide an opinion on the application for remission afresh accompanied by adequate reasoning. Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Constitutional Validity - Mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to attract the constitutional inhibition - There is presumption that the Parliament understands and reacts to the needs of its own people as per the exigencies and experience gained in the implementation of the law. (Para 59) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal by Developer against NCDRC order directing refund and compensation to Consumer for its failure to deliver possession of the apartment within the time stipulated as per the Apartment Buyers Agreement - Dismissed - Commission is correct in its approach in holding that the clauses of the agreement are one-sided and that the Consumer is not bound to accept the possession of the apartment and can seek refund of the amount deposited by her with interest - Commission has correctly exercised its power and jurisdiction in passing the directions for refund of the amount with interest. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Consumer complaint alleging vehicle defect - The limitation will run from the day the defect surfaces in a case. (Para 7) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other - They are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy. (Para 14.1) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 14(1) - If the reliefs granted in a consumer complaint fits any of the statutory provision contained in sub clause (1) of Section 14 of the Act, it would be well within the power and jurisdiction of the Forum to pass directions irrespective of the fact as to whether specifically certain reliefs have been claimed or not, provided that facts make out foundations for granting such reliefs. In any event, it is within the jurisdiction of the said forum to mould the reliefs claimed to do effective justice, provided the relief comes within the stipulation of Section 14(1) of the Act. (Para 15) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 14(1) - The failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a car­buyer of reasonable prudence should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect. And in computing such punitive damages, the capacity of the manufacturing enterprise should also be a factor - Such damages can be awarded in the event the defect is found to have the potential to cause serious injury or major loss to the consumer, particularly in respect of safety features of a vehicle. (Para 13) Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(g), 14 - The power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of Agreement is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts - A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation. The consumer can also make a prayer for both in the alternative. If a consumer prays for refund of the amount, without an alternative prayer, the Commission will recognize such a right and grant it, of course subject to the merits of the case. If a consumer seeks alternative reliefs, the Commission will consider the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case and will pass appropriate orders as justice demands. (Para 15-16) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Criminal Investigation - Delay in recording Section 161 CrPC Statement -An inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution's case but only to be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case. There may be adequate circumstances for not examining a witness at an appropriate time. However, non-examination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. It only causes doubt in the mind of the Court, which is required to be cleared. Similarly, a statement recorded, as in the present case, the investigation report is expected to be sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. A long, unexplained delay, would give room for suspicion. (Para 28) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Criminal Trial - A mere chart giving description of offences, numbers and the sections of the offences and about the nature of offences cannot be taken into account at the stage of conviction - If the Prosecution wanted the Court to take note of the fact that there were other matters in which accused were involved, the concerned Chargesheets should have been produced on record along with sufficient details including the judgments or orders of conviction. A mere chart cannot be taken as proof of the involvement of the accused in other crimes either at the stage of conviction or sentence. (Para 32, 22) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully established - Principles discussed. Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal Trial - Medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged - It is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. (Para 18) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Criminal Trial - Once the witness is in the witness box and is being cross examined every endeavour must be made to ensure that the cross examination is completed on that day. Neetu Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 349

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Accused's involvement in other crimes may be a relevant factor provided the concerned material in the form of concluded judgments in the other matters are brought on record in a manner known to law. The established involvement in other matters would then certainly be relevant while dealing with the question whether the concerned accused is required to be dealt with sternly or leniently. (Para 23) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Restorative Justice - To give opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail - The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender. (Para 43) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Criminal Trial - The court conducting the trial/appeal is not only obliged to protect the rights of the accused but also the rights of the victim, and the interest of the society at large. The Judge presiding over the criminal trial has not only to see that innocent man is not punished but has also to see that guilty man does not escape. Both are his public duties required to be discharged very diligently to maintain the public confidence and uphold the majesty of the law. (Para 35) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Criminal Trial - The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions - Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. (Para 17) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Customary Law - Mizo Customary Law - Inheritance - Inheritance depends upon the responsibility carried out by a legal heir to look after the elders in the family - It depends upon the question as to whether a person supports the deceased in his old age or not - Even if a natural heir does not support his parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance - Even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the person until his death could inherit the properties of that person. Kaithuami v. Ralliani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Dam Safety Act 2021 - Mullaperiyar Dam Dispute between Kerala and Tamil Nadu - Supreme Court reconstitutes Supervisory Committee- Confers it powers of the National Dam Safefy Authority under the Dam Safety Act - Chief Secretaries of States liable for vioaltion of committee directions- The reconstituted Supervisory Committee will decide all outstanding matters related to Mullaperiyar Dam's safety and conduct a safety review afresh- the Supervisory Committee, in terms of this order, is deemed to be discharging all the functions and powers of the NDSA until a regular NDSA becomes functional under the 2021 Act and more so, orders of this Court in that regard. Dr. Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Dam Safety Act 2021 -We express a sanguine hope that the competent authority may take appropriate steps to ensure that the regular NDSA under the 2021 Act is established at the earliest, as it cannot brook delay. Dr. Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Death Sentence - Appeal against Madhya Pradesh HC judgment which confirmed Death Sentence of man accused of rape and murder of 4 year old girl - Conviction upheld - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment - Imposed the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC. Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Death Sentence - Rarest of Rare doctrine discussed. (Para 41-42) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006; Regulation 6(2)(h) - Amended Regulation 6(2)(h) has a direct nexus with the object to be achieved, i.e., providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the students - It is made in order to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure. (Para 33, 41) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Dentists Act, 1948 - Appeal against Rajasthan HC judgment which struck down notification amending Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 - Allowed. Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Dentists Act, 1948; Section 10A- It is within the competence of the Council to make Regulations prescribing any other conditions, which are otherwise not found in clauses (a) to (f) of sub­section (7) of Section 10A of the Act. (Para 29-30) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case of another employee higher punishment is warranted and inflicted by the disciplinary authority after due application of mind. There cannot be any negative discrimination. The punishment/penalty to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like the position of the employee in the department, role attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him. (Para 11) Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Employee State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 2(22) - "Conveyance allowance" is equivalent to the traveling allowance and therefore any conveyance allowance/traveling allowance is excluded from the definition of "wages". Talema Electronic v. ESI Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Evidence Act 1872; Section 27 - Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24 to 26. Admissibility under Section 27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered. This provision merely facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequence of information received from a person in custody, accused of an offense. Thus, it incorporates the theory of "confirmation by subsequent facts" facilitating a link to the chain of events. It is for the prosecution to prove that the information received from the accused is relatable to the fact discovered. The object is to utilize it for the purpose of recovery as it ultimately touches upon the issue pertaining to the discovery of a new fact through the information furnished by the accused. Therefore, Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24 to 26 meant for a specific purpose and thus be construed as a proviso. (Para 31) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Evidence Act 1872; Section 27 - The onus is on the prosecution to prove the fact discovered from the information obtained from the accused. This is also for the reason that the information has been obtained while the accused is still in the custody of the police. Having understood the aforesaid object behind the provision, any recovery under Section 27 will have to satisfy the Court's conscience. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the accused, by other means. The Court will have to be conscious of the witness's credibility and the other evidence produced when dealing with a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (Para 32) Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Accused's statement recorded on a DVD and played in Court - Such a statement is in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act. If at all the accused were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code. Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence. (Para 20) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts - In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. (Para 19) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There is no absolute proposition of law that in a case when at the time when the dying declaration was recorded, there was no emergency and/or any danger to the life, the dying declaration should be discarded as a whole (Para 6) - Merely because the weapon used is not recovered cannot be a ground not to rely upon the dying declaration. (Para 9) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Evidence Act, 1882; Section 106 - Last Seen Together - Once the theory of "last seen together" was established, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to under which circumstances, he had parted the company of the victim -Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of the prosecution on the accused, nor requires the accused to furnish an explanation with regard to the facts which are especially within his knowledge, nonetheless furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of "last seen together" as propounded by the prosecution is proved against him, to know as to how and when the accused parted the company of the victim. (Para 26) Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

Extra­judicial confession - A weak piece of evidence - Unless such a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, the conviction solely on the basis of the same, without corroboration, would not be justified. Union of India v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Films and Television Institute of India - Majority view of the Committee appointed by SC accepted - Individuals with color blindness should be permitted to enroll for ALL courses offered by FTII. There should be no bar to admissions to the FTII for colorblind individuals - FTII should make reasonable accommodation in their curriculum for candidates with color blindness, in all courses where there is a bar to the admission of colorblind individuals. (Para 26-35) Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 429

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 - It is open to the State to have a regime which may completely prohibit receipt of foreign donation, as no right inheres in the citizen to receive foreign contribution (donation). (Para 74) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010; Section 12(1A) and 17(1) - Opening of main FCRA account in the designated bank as per the law made by the Parliament in that regard, cannot be brushed aside on the specious argument of some inconvenience being caused to the registered associations. (Para 76) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010; Section 7 - Complete prohibition regarding transfer of foreign contribution to third party - The transfer within the meaning of Section 7, would be a case of per se (simplicitor) transfer by the recipient of foreign contribution to third party without requiring to engage in the definite activities of cultural, economic, educational or social programme of the recipient of foreign contribution, for which the recipient had obtained a certificate of registration from the Central Government - If the recipient of foreign contribution engages services of some third party or outsources its certain activities to third person, whilst undertaking definite activities itself and had to pay therefor, it would be a case of utilisation. (Para 47) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 - Constitutional Validity upheld - Amended provisions vide the 2020 Act, namely, Sections 7, 12(1A), 12A and 17 of the FCRA Act, 2010, are intra vires the Constitution and the Principal Act - Section 12A read down and construed as permitting the key functionaries/office bearers of the applicant (associations/NGOs) who are Indian nationals, to produce Indian Passport for the purpose of their identification. (Para 87) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Uttar Pradesh); Section 2(b) - Even a single crime committed by a 'Gang' is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the 'Gang' - There can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. (Para 9-10) Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411

Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Uttar Pradesh) - All provisions are to ensure that the offences under the Gangsters Act should be given preference and should be tried expeditiously and that too, by the Special Courts, to achieve the object and purpose of the enactment of the Gangsters Act. (Para 8) Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411

Hawking - Any hawker can be permitted to hawk in the market only as per the hawking policy and not de hors the same - A hawker has no right to insist that he may be permitted to keep his goods and wares at the place where he is hawking overnight. (Para 1). Madan Lal v. NDMC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 373

Hindu Undivided Family - Joint Family Property - Gift - A Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose' - Term 'pious purpose' is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose - A deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed 'out of love and affection' does not come within the scope of the term 'pious purpose'. (Para 13) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Hindu Undivided Family - Joint Family Property - Power to alienate only in three situations, namely, (i) legal necessity (ii) for the benefit of the estate and (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family - Where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparceners whose consent has not been obtained. (Para 12) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 12AA - Registration of a trust or institution - Even if in a case where the registration application under Section 12AA is not decided within six months, there shall not be any deemed registration. Harshit Foundation v Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 431

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 2 (1A) - Companies Act, 1956; Section 394 (2), 481 - Despite amalgamation, the business, enterprise and undertaking of the transferee or amalgamated company- which ceases to exist, after amalgamation, is treated as a continuing one, and any benefits, by way of carry forward of losses (of the transferor company), depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee - Whether corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case. (Para 42) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 254 - Limitation to to entertain fresh claim would apply to the "assessing authority", but not impinge upon the plenary powers of the ITAT bestowed under Section 254 of the Act - Rejected contention that ITAT cannot entertain fresh claim for the first time. (Para 10-11) Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 37 - Loss suffered owing to exchange fluctuation while repaying loan can be regarded as revenue expenditure - The exchange fluctuation loss is an expenditure incidental to carrying on of business and comes within the purview of section 37 of the Act as the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. (Para 3, 7-9) Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Appeal against orders of the Karnataka High Court, which had permitted Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College to admit students for the academic year 2018-2019 in view of the permission granted for the year 2019-2020 - Allowed - The finding that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is totally erroneous. Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Indian Medicine Central Council (Post­Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 - No medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post graduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Prior to such a permission being granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to be followed. (Para 28) Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The provisions of the Code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such. Invest Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction v. Girnar Fibres, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 423

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 and 141 - Moratorium - Liability of natural persons like a Director of the Company - The moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would apply only to the corporate debtor and that the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 of the Act would continue to be statutorily liable under the provisions of the Act. Narinder Garg v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 428

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 20 - Even if it is found that the Corporate Debtor was not a going concern during the CIRP despite best efforts by the resolution professional, it cannot be presumed that still the Corporate Debtor was a going concern during the CIRP period. It depends on the facts of each case. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 36(4), 53(1) - Section 53(1) of the IB Code shall not be applicable to dues of the workmen/employees on account of provident fund, gratuity and pension - They are to be treated outside the liquidation process and liquidation estate assets under the IB Code. (Para 13) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 5(13), 53(1)(b), 53(1)(c) - Insolvency resolution process costs - Dues towards the wages/salaries of only those workmen/employees who actually worked during the CIRP are to be included in the CIRP costs - The wages and salaries of all other workmen / employees of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP who actually have not worked and/or performed their duties when the Corporate Debtor was a going concern, shall not be included automatically in the CIRP costs. Such dues will be governed by Section 53(1)(b) and Section 53(1) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. (Para 9-10) Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

Insurance Contract - Interpreting ambiguous terms in an insurance contract - first harmoniously by reading the contract in its entirety - if still vague then the term must be interpreted in favour of the insured, i.e., against the drafter of the policy. Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 432

Interim Order - A party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him. (Para 20) Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Interim Orders - A stayed order is not wiped out from the existence, unless it is quashed - Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order. In other words, the interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings - It is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise. (Para 24) State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Interim Orders - Appeal against Allahabad HC order holding that the writ petitioner was not liable to pay interest as he was under the protection of the interim order (though the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and the notice demanding interest was issued after it) - Allowed - On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Interpretation of Statutes - it is the duty of the court to avoid a head­-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner so as to harmonise them - when two conflicting provisions in an Act cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both - if the court has a choice between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, such an interpretation will have to be avoided - an interpretation, which will result in anomaly or absurdity, should be avoided - the statute has to be interpreted in such a manner that it preserves its workability. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Interpretation of Statutes - Rule of Contra proferentem - The rule of contra proferentem thus protects the insured from the vagaries of an unfavourable interpretation of an ambiguous term to which it did not agree - The rule assumes special significance in standard form insurance policies, called contract d' adhesion or boilerplate contracts, in which the insured has little to no countervailing bargaining power. Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 432

Interpretation of Statutes - To examine whether a provision is directory or mandatory, one of the tests is that the court is required to ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scheme of the statute. (Para 29) Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Interpretation of Statutes - When Statutes provide more than one judicial fora for effectuating a right or to enforce a duty-obligation, it is a feature of remedial choices offered by the State for an effective access to justice. Therefore, while interpreting statutes provisioning plurality of remedies, it is necessary for Courts to harmonise the provisions in a constructive manner. (Para 14.1-14.2) Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Interpretation of Statutes - Where a statute contains both general provision as well as specific provision, the later must prevail. (Para 8) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Interpretation of Statutes - Where the definition of a word is inclusive, as presaged by the adoption of the expression 'includes', it is prima facie extensive. (Para 32) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Judgment & Order - Reasoning is the life blood of the judicial system. That every order must be reasoned is one of the fundamental tenets of our system. An unreasoned order suffers the vice of arbitrariness. (Para 18) Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Judgments - High Court dictated operative portion of the order on 06.11.2019 but the final order was dictated only on 15.03.2020 i.e. after 4 months and it typed out and corrected on 15.04.2020 - Supreme Court observed that it has repeatedly frowned upon the aspect of the oral orders being passed. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judgments - Practice of pronouncing final order without a reasoned judgment - Serious difficulties are caused on account of the said practice - Even if such oral orders were to be pronounced, it is expected that they are either dictated in Court or at least must follow immediately thereafter to facilitate the aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher Court. (Para 2-3) Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Judicial Service (Delhi) - Order dated 21st March 2002 modified - 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through LDCE of Civil Judges having 7 years qualifying service [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division)] or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by Limited Departmental competitive Examination with those candidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge(Junior Division). (Para 17) All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 - Juvenility Plea of applicant whose murder conviction was affirmed by Supreme Court by dismissing SLP in 2009 - Juvenile Justice Board passed an order holding that, on the date of commission of the offence, his age was 17 years 07 months and 23 days - Applicant has undergone the sentence for 17 years and 03 days - It will be unjust to send the applicant to the Juvenile Justice Board - He shall be forthwith set at liberty provided he is not required to be detained under any other order of the competent Court. Sanjay Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 369

Labour Law - An employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages- In the first instance, there is an obligation on the part of the employee to plead that he is not gainfully employed. It is only then that the burden would shift upon the employer to make an assertion and establish the same. [Para 31-33] Allahabad Bank v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405

Labour Law - Appeal against Madras HC judgment directing payment of backwages to an employee - Dismissed - Employee/writ petitioner cannot be denied the back wages for no fault of his and the principle of "no work no pay" shall not be applicable. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Labour Law - Employee is not supposed to prove the negative that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of employment- Once he asserts that he is not gainfully employed, thereafter the onus will shift to the employer positively and it would be for the employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed. (Para 6) Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Land Acquisition - Appeal against Himachal Pradesh HC judgment which disposed a writ petition challenging dispossession and seeking compensation - Allowed - In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law - State directed to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants. Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Land Acquisition - Need for written consent in matters of land acquisition proceedings - contention of 'oral' consent to be baseless. Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Legal Maxims - Nemo dat quod non habet - No one can confer a better title than what he himself has. (Para 19) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Legal Maxims - Res ipsa loquitor - Res ipsa loquitor is resorted to when an accident is shown to have occurred and the cause of the accident is primarily within the knowledge of the defendant. The mere fact that the cause of the accident is unknown does not prevent the plaintiff from recovering the damages, if proper inference to be drawn from the circumstances which are known is that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant. (Para 53) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 109 - Article 109 is the special Article to apply where the alienation of the father is challenged by the son and the property is ancestral and the parties are governed by Mitakshara law - The word 'alienation' in this article includes 'gift' - In order to attract Article 109, the following conditions have to be fulfilled: 1) The parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at the instance of the son; (3) the property relates to ancestral property; and (4) the alienee has taken over possession of the property alienated by the father. (Para 8 - 9) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Media Trial - All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel. If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law. The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law. Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice. (Para 21) Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Mediation - All States are mandated to set up the mediation cells - A direction is made for the e-filing system to be made operational. 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, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Mediation - Mediation is an important, if not at times a better method of resolution of disputes. 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, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Medical Course - Eligibility Requirement for Taking Admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 - National Medical Commission is not bound to grant provisional registration to the student who has not completed the entire duration of the course from the Foreign Institute including the clinical training. (Para 15) National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Medical Course - Screening Test Regulations, 2002 - Granting provisional registration to complete internship to a student who has not undergone clinical training would be compromising with the health of the citizens of any country and the health infrastructure at large - The decision of the National Medical Commission not to grant provisional registration cannot be said to be arbitrary - Qualifying in the Screening Regulations is no proof of the clinical experience, if any, gained by the students. (Para 16-21) National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426

Medical Negligence - A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another - He/she would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field - Merely because he/she could not save the patient, that could not be considered to be a case of medical negligence. (Para 21-27) Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Medical Negligence - Appeal against NCDRC which dismissed appellant's complaint of medical negligence - Dismissed - Commission has not committed any manifest error in arriving to a conclusion that in post operative medical negligence or follow up care, there was no negligence being committed by the respondents which may be a foundation for entertaining the complaint filed by the appellants. Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Meerut Fire Tragedy (2006) - 40:60 Liability On State & Organizers To Compensate Victims - Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to nominate within two weeks a District Judge or Additional District Judge to work on a day to day basis for determining the compensation payable to the families of the victims of the fire that broke out during a consumer fair in Meerut in 2006 - Computation of compensation in accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006; Section 19 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. (Para 4) Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 39A - Appointment of the Additional Municipal Commissioners - State Government created post and made appointment, but for Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation - Additional Municipal Commissioner to exercise power subject to the control of the Commissioner - Respondent no. 1 was an employee of the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Maharashtra); Section 56 - Imposition of penalties on municipal officer and servants - the Commissioner was empowered to suspend any officer, whether appointed by the Corporation or any other competent authority - In case of 'post equivalent to or higher in rank than the post of Assistant Commissioner', in terms of Section 56(1)(a) it is required to take prior approval from the Corporation - When a Transport Manager or officers appointed under Section 45 of the MMC Act is suspended by the Commissioner they are to inform the Corporation, which is to confirm suspension within a period of six months or else the suspension would come to an end - the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation will have the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, who is an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 118(a) - Presumption - Every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Partition - It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek the cancellation of the alienations- Alienees as well as the cosharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the co­sharer. It may also be open to the alienee, in the final decree proceedings, to seek the allotment of the transferred property, to the share of the transferor, so that equities are worked out in a fair manner. (Para 15) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Anganwadi centres - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Section 11 - The activity of running a preschool for the children in the age group of 3 to 6 years is purely an educational activity. The job of teaching is done by AWWs and AWHs. The State Government is running pre-schools in Anganwadi centres in accordance with Section 11 of the RTE Act. (Para 30) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to Anganwadi workers (AWW) and Anganwadi helpers. (Para 31) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 2(s) - 'Wages' - Ad hoc payment made pursuant to the interim orders passed by Court does not form part of "wages" within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the purpose of calculating gratuity. (Para 17-22) Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 3(1)(b) - Anganwadi centres are establishments contemplated by clause (b) of sub­section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act - 'Establishments' contemplated by clause (b) can be establishments within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in a State in relation to establishments. (Para 24) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 324 - Arms Act, 1950 ; Section 27 - Once the charge against the appellants under Section 324 IPC of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm, which is a dangerous weapon stands established, they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by Section 27 of the Arms Act. (Para 22) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Penal Code, 1860; Section 148 - Merely because three persons were chargesheeted / charged / tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC when involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. (Para 12) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - Appeal against Rajasthan High court judgment which partly allowed a criminal appeal by maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, but by reducing the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days) - Allowed - Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate- trial Court had already taken a very lenient view while imposing the sentence of only three years' rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same. State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - There is no minimum sentence under Section 307 IPC - Discretion has to be exercised judiciously and the sentence has to be imposed proportionately and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed and by considering the principles for imposing sentence. (Para 9) State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Penal Code, 1860; Section 324 - The presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows: 1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and 2. Such hurt was caused. (Para 21) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Penal Code, 1860; Section 366 - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant accused of abducting/kidnapping a girl - Allowed - The abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will - No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Penal Code, 1860; Section 366 - Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the accused and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married the accused on her own free will without any influence being exercised by the accused. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362

Penal Code, 1860; Section 394 - Appeal by accused convicted under Section 394 IPC - Allowed - Prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden to such an extent that the presumption of innocence weighing in favour of the accused stands displaced. Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Power of Attorney - The possession of an agent under a deed of Power of Attorney is also the possession of the Principal and that any unauthorized sale made by the agent will not tantamount to the Principal parting with possession. (Para 14) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Power of Attorney - The power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney - Ordinarily a Power of Attorney is to be construed strictly by the Court - Cannot amplify or magnify the clauses contained in the deed of Power of Attorney - The document should expressly authorize the agent, (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority. (Para 9, 17-18) Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Practice and Procedure - Appeal against Allahabad HC judgment which set aside conviction in a murder case - Allowed and remanded - Despite the strong observations made by this Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued. Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Practice and Procedure - Criminal Appeals - Criminal appeals are being disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods - Practice of disposing of criminal appeals by adopting shortcuts deprecated. (Para 10) State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Practice and Procedure - Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021 - Bail - Para 17 (i) of the Draft Rules should be read as mandating the furnishing of the bail order to the prison concerned - The bail order should be furnished by the prison authorities to the accused. In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trial, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Practice and Procedure - Practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged. Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386

Precedent - Whenever the State or instrumentalities of State come up with appeals challenging small benefits granted to individual litigants, this Court applies the test of proportionality to see whether the quantum of benefits granted to the individual concerned, justifies the examination of the question of law, at the cost of that little man from a far off place. The refusal of this Court to go into the question of law in such cases, cannot be treated as tantamounting to answering the question of law in a particular manner. (Para 15) Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act ,1986 (Telangana) - A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" - Callous exercise of the exceptional power of preventive detention by the detaining authorities and the state - Respondents directed to take stock of challenges to detention orders pending before the Advisory Board, High Court and Supreme Court and evaluate the fairness of the detention order against lawful standards. (Para 17) Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Preventive Detention - Appeal against Telangana HC judgment which dismissed challenge against a preventive detention order - Allowed - The case at hand is a clear example of non-application of mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority - Detention order quashed. Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Preventive Detention - The personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding. The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian. (Para 15) Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Prison Act, 2000 (Delhi); Section 2(h) - Delhi Prison Rules, 2018; Rule 1222-1223 - Getting remission is not a pre-requisite for obtaining furlough - Even if a prisoner is not to get any remission in his sentence and has to serve the sentence of imprisonment throughout his natural life, neither the requirements of his maintaining good conduct are whittled down nor the reformative approach and incentive for good conduct cease to exist in his relation. Thus, if he maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied as a matter of course - Depriving of even the concession of furlough and thereby taking away an incentive/motivation for good conduct would not only be counter-productive but would be an antithesis to the reformative approach otherwise running through the scheme of Rules of 2018. (Para 14-15) Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Prison Rules, 2018 (Delhi); Rule 1223 - The eligibility requirement to obtain furlough is of '3 Annual good conduct reports' and not '3 Annual good conduct remissions'. The expressions employed in Clause (I) of Rule 1223 of the Rules of 2018 are that the prisoner ought to maintain 'Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report' and further that he should continue 'to maintain good conduct'. Even these expressions cannot be read to mean that the prisoner ought to earn 'good conduct remissions' - It cannot be said that earning rewards is equivalent to earning remissions. (Para 12) Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 427

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - If the financial establishment is obligated to return the deposit without any increments, it shall still fall within the purview of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act, provided that the deposit does not fall within any of the exception. (Para 37) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra) - Constitutional Validity upheld - MPID Act is constitutionally valid on the grounds of legislative competence and when tested against the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. [Referred to KK Bhaskaran v. State (2011) 3 SCC 793, State of Maharashtra v. Vijay C. Puljal (2012) 10 SCC 599 and Sonal Hemant Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 10 SCC 601] (Para 54, 57) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - National Spot Exchange Ltd - Settlement Guarantee Fund- Though the SGF is termed as a "security deposit' in nomenclature, its features do not represent a security deposit. Since NSEL receives 'money' in the form of that is returned in money and services, and is not covered by the exceptions, it would fall within the expression 'deposit' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act - NSEL is a 'financial establishment' for the purposes of the Act if it is a 'person accepting deposit'. (Para 41, 31) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - Deposit - Ingredients (i) Any receipt of money or the acceptance of a valuable commodity by a financial establishment; (ii) Such acceptance ought to be subject to the money or commodity being required to be returned after a specified period or otherwise; and (iii) The return of the money or commodity may be in cash, kind or in the form of a specified service, with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form. (Para 31) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(c) - Valuable Commodity - Unlike many other state enactments which govern the field, clause (c) of Section 2 of the MPID Act comprehends within the meaning of a deposit not only the receipt of money but of any valuable commodity as well - The phrase 'valuable commodity' cannot be restricted to only mean precious metals. Agricultural commodities which NSEL trades in will fall within the purview of the term. (Para 35, 43) State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999 (Maharashtra) - Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order of freeing the attachment of assets of 63 Moons Technologies. State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Appeal against the Madras HC judgment which quashed proceedings under Domestic Violence Act on the ground of limitation - Allowed - High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence. Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12 - The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued - The dictum in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act. (Para 22) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12, 31 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 - If there be any offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code will apply from the date of commission of such offence. By the time an application is preferred under Section 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Act. Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act. (Para 15) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12, 31 - Filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act cannot be equated to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. (Para 20) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370

Public Order - A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" - The distinction between a disturbance to law and order and a disturbance to public order discussed. Mallada K. Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (amended by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 ) - Constitutional validity upheld - Land for common purposes can be classified in three categories - Part of agrarian reforms and is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The Amending Act does not acquire land or deprive the proprietors of their ownership as such ownership stood already divested in view of consolidation scheme reserving land for common purposes - Only a clarificatory or a declaratory amendment as the land stood vested in the panchayat - The Amending Act having been enacted after the assent of the President, is protected in terms of Article 31A of the Constitution - The entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut had to be utilised by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors. State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Law - A non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services - Employer would not be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. Where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the Court to interfere - The cases of non-disclosure of material information and of submitting false information have been treated as being of equal gravity. Union of India v. Dillip Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Service Law - An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. (Para 12) Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Service Law - Appeal against Orissa High Court direction to impose 'any lesser punishment' to employee terminated from service for non-disclosure of criminal cases - Allowed - In a case of the present nature where a criminal case was indeed pending against the respondent and the facts were altogether omitted from being mentioned, the employer would be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. Union of India v. Dillip Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360

Service Law - Appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio. (Para 32) State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee. Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404

Service Law - Even if the appointment was irregular, the appellant had discharged the duties and in lieu of duties, he had to be paid. The State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of any salary. Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Service Law - LIC as a statutory corporation is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment process of the corporation must meet the constitutional standard of a fair and open process. Allowing for back-door entries into service is an anathema to public service. (Para 72) Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Service Law - Regularization - A public employer such as LIC cannot be directed to carry out a mass absorption of over 11,000 workers on such flawed premises without following a recruitment process which is consistent with the principles of equality of opportunity governed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such an absorption would provide the very back-door entry, which negates the principle of equal opportunity and fairness in public employment, which has been specifically decried by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. (Para 74.iii) Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417

Service Law - Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) - A member of the disciplined force is expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in a fancy. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392 (Para 9)

Service Law - Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) - Appeal against Gauhati High court judgment upholding the order of disciplinary authority removing the appellant from service - Dismissed If the conduct on the part of the appellant entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion in the midnight is approved, in that case, it would lead to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack. Therefore, the disciplinary authority was absolutely justified in imposing the punishment/penalty of 'removal from service' by modifying the earlier punishment of dismissal. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Service Law - Suppression of information about criminal cases - This Court has held that giving of a wrong information disentitles the candidate for appointment -An employee desirous of holding civil post has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. Truthfulness cannot be made causality by an aspirant much more for a candidate aspiring to be a teacher. (Paras 10, 11 and 12) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Bheem Singh Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Service Law - There are several authorities in which this Court has deprecated the practice on the part of the employees at the fag end of their career to dispute the records pertaining to their dates of birth that would have the effect of extension of the length of their service. The very reasoning on which an employee is not permitted to raise age­-correction plea at the fag end of his service to extend his tenure should also apply to the employer as well. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Service Law - There are several authorities in which this Court has deprecated the practice on the part of the employees at the fag end of their career to dispute the records pertaining to their dates of birth that would have the effect of extension of the length of their service. The very reasoning on which an employee is not permitted to raise age­-correction plea at the fag end of his service to extend his tenure should also apply to the employer as well. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement Scheme - VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. It is the right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee's application for voluntary retirement, the employer take any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Societies Registration Act, 1860; Section 6 – Travancore ­ Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955; Section 9 - Unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit. (Para 15) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Societies Registration Act, 1860; Section 6 – Travancore ­ Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955; Section 9 - Unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and verified the pleadings was authorised by the bye­laws to do so, the suit cannot be entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the bye­laws support the institution of such a suit. (Para 15) P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell - Once the execution of agreement to sell and the payment of advance substantial sale consideration is admitted by the vendor, nothing further is required to be proved by the vendee. (Para 5.2) P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 375

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 22(2) - Section 22(2) of the Act is only directory - Relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed - The expression "at any stage of proceeding" is wide enough to allow the plaintiffs to seek relief of possession even at the appellate stage or in execution even if such prayer was required to be claimed. (Para 25 - 30) Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 41(b) and (d) - Injunction can be refused when sought to restrain any person from institution or prosecuting any proceedings in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought - Injunction can be refused when sought to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340

Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay) - Once a single instrument has been charged under a correct charging provision of the Statute, namely Article 20(a), the Revenue cannot split the instrument into two, because of the reduction in the stamp duty facilitated by a notification of the Government issued under Section 9(a). In other words after having accepted the deed of assignment as an instrument chargeable to duty as a conveyance under Article 20(a) and after having collected the duty payable on the same, it is not open to the respondent to subject the same instrument to duty once again under Article 45(f), merely because the appellant had the benefit of the notifications under Section 9(a). (Para 16) Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay) - Stamp duty not separately payable on Power of Attorney executed along with deed assigning debt under the SARFAESI Act. Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Subordinate Legislation - Grounds of challenge - Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. Though it may also be questioned on the ground of unreasonableness, such unreasonableness should not be in the sense of not being reasonable, but should be in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary (Para 22 -26) - The presumption is always with regard to the validity of a provision. The burden is on the party who challenges the validity of such provision (Para 30) - It is not permissible for the Court to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation ­making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. (Para 36-39) Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 62 - Usufructuary Mortgage - Once a usufructuary mortgage is created, the mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time on the principle that once a mortgage always a mortgage. Harminder Singh v. Surjit Kaur, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 - The hospitals where the procedure of transplantation is undertaken are to be registered in terms of Section 14 of the Act 1994, but for postoperative care, particularly after the patient being discharged from the hospital where the procedure of transplantation has taken place, we have not come across any provision under the Act, 1994 where such hospitals are required to be registered under the Act 1994. (Para 35) Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Universities Act, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh State) - Appeal against the order of Uttarakhand HC which allowed writ petition filed by a Registrar of State University seeking parity in pay with its counterparts in Central University - Allowed - State has not made a decision to accept and adopt the circular of the Central Government pertaining to the Registrars working in the Universities coming under its purview - When the classification is distinct and clear having adequate rationale with due relation to the objective, there is no reason to hold otherwise by treating a Registrar at par with the Lecturers. One is meant for administration and the other teaching. State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354

Universities Act, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh State) - Direction issued by the Central Government would at worst be mandatory to the Central Universities and the Central Government Colleges receiving funds - Any such decision would obviously be directory to State Government Colleges and Universities, being in the nature of a mere recommendation. (Para 20) State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - Appeal against Rajasthan HC order denying bail to UAPA accused- under trial - Allowed - In the nature of the case against the appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail. Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 11) Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Voluntary Retirement Scheme - VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. It is the right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee's application for voluntary retirement, the employer take any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law. (Para 21) Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Voluntary Surrender - If the Panchayat / Municipality is taking a stand that a land was voluntarily surrendered, the burden would be on the Panchayat / Municipality to establish such voluntary surrender. (Para 12-13) Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410

Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDCs) - The use of VWDCs should, in addition to criminal cases, be allowed for other jurisdictions, including, civil jurisdictions, family courts, juvenile justice boards and Childrens' courts. Permission should be granted for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses in cases across all jurisdictions. (Para 3) Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Waqf Act, 1995 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which set aside the notification which cancelled appointment of one Shaikh Mahemud as a Member of the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs - Allowed - The findings of the High Court (i) that the term of office of a Member of the Board stipulated under Section 15 of the Waqf Act cannot be curtailed except in the case of disqualification under Section 16 or removal under Section 20; and (ii) that the cancellation 4 of appointment was arbitrary, are incapable of being upheld. State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 14 - The power to appoint would include the power of cancellation of appointment. (Para 14-15) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 14,15 - Nomination always stands on a slightly different footing than election - It may not be possible for the State Government to breach the process of election from each of the electoral colleges by curtailing the term of office of such elected members. But the same logic cannot be extended to nominated members. (Para 10-12) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 20 - The procedure prescribed under Section 20 has no application in a case where the appointment was cancelled by the notification. (Para 16) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Waqf Act, 1995; Section 3(r) - Definition of waqf - there ought to be proof of dedication or user or grant to qualify as waqf - in the absence of any proof of dedication or user, a dilapidated wall or a platform cannot be conferred a status of a religious place for the purpose of offering prayers / Namaaz. [Para 17, 18] Waqf Board. Rajasthan v. Jindal Saw Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 425

Will - Appeal against Madras HC judgment which allowed second appeal and dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff who sought a declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of certain properties based upon the last Will and Testament by one Munisamy Chettiar, whom she claimed to be her husband - Allowed - The trial Court and the first appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the Will was true and valid and that there were no suspicious circumstances - High Court re­appreciated the very same evidence to come to a different conclusion in a second appeal - Truth and validity of the Will did not depend upon whether the plaintiff was a legally wedded wife or mistress of the testator or whether she was in an unacceptable relationship with the plaintiff. Saroja Ammal v. M. Deenadayalan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379

Will - The absolute owner of a property is entitled even to bequeath his properties in favour of strangers. (Para 20) Saroja Ammal v. M. Deenadayalan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379

2022 LiveLaw (SC) April Nominal Index (334 – 433)

1. Abid Ul Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353
2. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 385
3. Allahabad Bank v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405
4. Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392
5. Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402
6. Ashutosh Kumar v. Film and Television Institute of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 429
7. Asset Reconstruction Co. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415
8. Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 427
9. Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397
10. Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 414
11. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 350
12. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Sandeep Choudhary, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 419
13. Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365
14. Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359
15. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364
16. Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366
17. Dokala Hari Babu v. Kotra Appa Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 342
18. Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri v. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391
19. Dr.Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 356
20. Eastern Coalfields v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 374
21. Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson and Company Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389
22. Experion Developers v. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352
23. Fertilizer Corporation v. Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351
24. Frost International Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340
25. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Bheem Singh Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339
26. Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 432 -
27. Harminder Singh v. Surjit Kaur, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 421
28. Harshit Foundation v Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 431
29. Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348
30. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399
31. In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trial, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 433
32. In Re: Inaction of the Government In Appointing President, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371
33. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd v. U.B. Engineering Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409
34. Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386
35. Invest Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Girnar Fibres Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 423
36. Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403
37. Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376
38. Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372
39. K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381
40. Kaithuami v. Ralliani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 412
41. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337
42. Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410
43. Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370
44. Madan Lal v. NDMC, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 373
45. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362
46. Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal v. Bhanuj Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394
47. Mallada K Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358
48. Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341
49. Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408
50. Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395
51. Manish Gupta v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406
52. Mohd Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390
53. Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384
54. Narinder Garg v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 428
55. National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426
56. Neetu Tripathi v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 349
57. Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355
58. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416
59. P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334
60. P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijayalakshmi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 375
61. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahagun Realtors, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346
62. Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401
63. Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396
64. Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417
65. Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413
66. Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki v. Raju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 344
67. Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377
68. Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368
69. Sanjay Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 369
70. Saroja Ammal v. M. Deenadayalan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379
71. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. R.T. Agro Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 424
72. Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407
73. Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367
74. Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411
75. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345
76. Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380
77. State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361
78. State of Maharashtra v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400
79. State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363
80. State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393
81. State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357
82. State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378
83. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430
84. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336
85. State of Uttarakhand v. Mayan Pal Singh Verma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388
86. State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354
87. Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347
88. Sunil Kumar Jain v. Sundaresh Bhatt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382
89. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Vishwaraj Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335
90. Talema Electronic v. ESI Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 422
91. Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383
92. Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338
93. Union of India v. Dillip Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360
94. Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404
95. Union of India v. Major R. Metri, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343
96. Union of India v. Mukesh Kumar Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 420
97. Union of India v. Willowood Chemicals, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398
98. Waqf Board. Rajasthan v. Jindal Saw Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 425
99. Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418