Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
23 March 2022 11:51 AM GMT
Supreme Court Monthly Digest February 2022 With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index
x

NOMINAL INDEXAbinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218Adiraj Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune II | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 190Ajanta LLP v. Casio | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248Anamika Varun Rathore v. Varun Pratap Singh Rathore | 1 Feb 2022...

NOMINAL INDEX

  1. Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218
  2. Adiraj Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune II | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 190
  3. Ajanta LLP v. Casio | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127
  4. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248
  5. Anamika Varun Rathore v. Varun Pratap Singh Rathore | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 125
  6. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195
  7. Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling v. Aakavi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. | 12 Jan 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 191
  8. Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193
  9. B. Boraiah v. M.G. Thirthaprasad | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 160
  10. B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165
  11. Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181
  12. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295
  13. Balakram @ Bhura v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 215
  14. Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253
  15. Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214
  16. Bimal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 157
  17. Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130
  18. Brahmaputra Biochem Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 211
  19. Central Industrial Security Force v. HC (GD) Om Prakas | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 128
  20. Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256
  21. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129
  22. Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA) | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172
  23. Darshan Kaur Bhatia v. Ramesh Gandhi | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 246
  24. Debananda Tamuli v. Smti Kakumoni Kataky | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167
  25. Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Munjaji | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 183
  26. Dr. A. Parthasarathy v. E Springs Avenues Pvt. Ltd; | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 199
  27. Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. v. Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 145
  28. ECGC Ltd. v. Mokul Shriram EPC JV | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 168
  29. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226
  30. Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114
  31. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 201
  32. Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund Organization | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 202
  33. Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186
  34. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121
  35. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221
  36. Jaina Construction Company v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 154
  37. Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222
  38. Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237
  39. Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 115
  40. K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182
  41. K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192
  42. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar | 8 Feb 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141
  43. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161
  44. Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189
  45. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203
  46. Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220
  47. Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227
  48. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230
  49. M. Chinnamuthu v. Kamaleshan @ Shanmugam | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209
  50. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198
  51. Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170
  52. Missu Naseem v. State of Andhra Pradesh | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 132
  53. Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta | 2 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120
  54. Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150
  55. Muhammed A.A. v. State of Kerala | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 188
  56. Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205
  57. Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225
  58. Mutha Construction v. Strategic Brand Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 163
  59. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224
  60. Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229
  61. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247
  62. Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142
  63. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123
  64. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw SC 184
  65. NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212
  66. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176
  67. Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144
  68. Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139
  69. Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162
  70. Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mitrajyoti Deka | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231
  71. Punjab National Bank v. Union of India | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 208
  72. Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co. | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279
  73. R. Muthukumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 140
  74. R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152
  75. Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255
  76. Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200
  77. Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137
  78. Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250
  79. Ravindra v. Union of India | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156
  80. Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174
  81. Registrar General v. State | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 204
  82. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 207
  83. Sabir v Bhoora @ Nadeem | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 210
  84. Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177
  85. Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169
  86. Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138
  87. Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P. | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153
  88. Sharafat Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 179
  89. Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213
  90. Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197
  91. Siddharthshankar Sharma v. Union of India | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 147
  92. Sk. Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan v. Central Bureau of Investigation | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 146
  93. Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. | 2 Feb 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117
  94. Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw SC 143
  95. State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136
  96. State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187
  97. State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178
  98. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Karuna Shanker Puri | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 173
  99. State of Kerala v. Laxmi Vasanth | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166
  100. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151
  101. State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113
  102. State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206
  103. State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary | 16 Dec 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158
  104. State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116
  105. State of U.P. v. Veerpal | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111
  106. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249
  107. State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131
  108. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245
  109. Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219
  110. Surat Parsi Panchayat Board v. Union of India | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 149
  111. Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217
  112. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232
  113. T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180
  114. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196
  115. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228
  116. Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155
  117. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171
  118. Union of India v. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175
  119. Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244
  120. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254
  121. United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164
  122. Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. v. B.P.PLC | 18 Feb 2022 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185
  123. Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223
  124. Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216
  125. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159
  126. X (Minor) v. State of Jharkhand | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 194
  127. Yes bank v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 135


SUBJECTWISE/STATUTEWISE INDEX

Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)) - The land dedicated for pious and religious purpose is not immune from its vesting with the State. (Para 196) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Importance of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the affected party in any administrative or quasi­ judicial proceedings. (Para 28) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Advocate Commissioners - The Advocate Commissioner is not a new concept. The advocates are appointed as Court Commissioner to perform diverse administrative and ministerial work as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 36) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Advocates - Role of the advocate as being an officer of the court - An advocate is a guardian of constitutional morality and justice equally with the Judge. He has an important duty as that of a Judge. He bears responsibility towards the society and is expected to act with utmost sincerity and commitment to the cause of justice. He has a duty to the court first. As an officer of the court, he owes allegiance to a higher cause and cannot indulge in consciously misstating the facts or for that matter conceal any material fact within his knowledge - An advocate should be diligent and his conduct should conform to the requirements of the law by which he plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. As an officer of the court, he is under a higher obligation to uphold the rule of law and justice system. (Para 37 - 39) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Affidavits - Once an affidavit has been filed which is on the face of it false to the knowledge of the executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given. (Para 16) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Affidavits - Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheets of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer an oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such a solemn statement made on oath. (Para 17) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (Rajasthan) - Section 9 - It cannot be said to be a mandatory statutory obligation of the Market Committees to provide shop/land/platform on rent/lease. (Para 9) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Anticipatory bail granted to Trinamool Congress leader Sheikh Sufiyan in a case relating to the murder of a BJP supporter during the West Bengal post -poll violence. Sk. Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan v. Central Bureau of Investigation | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 146

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - While dealing with petition under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non arbitrability are plainly arguable. In such case, the issue of non arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. (Para 11) Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta | 2 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - An error in interpretation of a contract in a case where there is valid and lawful submission of arbitral disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal is an error within the jurisdiction. (Para 45) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Patent Illegality - An Arbitral Tribunal being a creature of contract, is bound to act in terms of the contract under which it is constituted. An award can be said to be patently illegal where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to act in terms of the contract or has ignored the specific terms of a contract. (Para 44) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - The Court does not sit in appeal over the award made by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Court does not ordinarily interfere with interpretation made by the Arbitral Tribunal of a contractual provision, unless such interpretation is patently unreasonable or perverse. Where a contractual provision is ambiguous or is capable of being interpreted in more ways than one, the Court cannot interfere with the arbitral award, only because the Court is of the opinion that another possible interpretation would have been a better one. (Para 46) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - The principle that a court while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the Arbitrator for a fresh decision would be applicable where the Appellate Court decides the application under Section 34 of the Act on merits - Even in a case where the award is set aside under Section 34 of the Act on whatever the grounds which may be available under Section 34 of the Act, in that case the parties can still agree for the fresh arbitration may be by the same arbitrator - When both the parties agreed to set aside the award and to remit the matter to the learned Sole Arbitrator for fresh reasoned Award, it is not open to contend that the matter may not be and/or ought not to have been remanded to the same sole arbitrator. (Para 8) Mutha Construction v. Strategic Brand Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 163

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - The High Court has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the same Arbitrator unless it is consented by both the parties that the matter be remanded to the same Arbitrator -The High Court either may relegate the parties for fresh arbitration or to consider the appeal on merits on the basis of the material available on record within the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction under Section 37. (Para 3) Dr. A. Parthasarathy v. E Springs Avenues Pvt. Ltd; | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 199

Architects Act, 1972 - Section 21, 45 - Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 - The Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) or even otherwise. It is only in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central Government under Section 45(1) would become necessary. (Para 15) Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA) | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Army Act, 1950 - Section 125 - Section 125 not only recognizes that an element of discretion has been vested in the designated officer, but it also postulates that the designated officer should have decided that the proceedings be instituted by the court -martial in which event the court -martial would take place. (Para 44) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Army Act, 1950 - Section 125 - The criminal court will have jurisdiction to try a case against an army personnel if the Commanding Officer does not exercise the discretion under Section 125 of the Army Act to initiate court -martial with respect to the offence - If the designated officer does not exercise this discretion to institute proceedings before a court -martial, the Army Act would not interdict the exercise of jurisdiction by the ordinary criminal court. (Para 30) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Army Act, 1950 - Section 70 - The ingredients of Section 70 are: (i) The offence must be committed by a person subject to the Army Act; (ii) The offence must be committed against a person who is not subject to military, naval or air force law; and (iii) The offence must be of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder or rape. (Para 43) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)) - The Jurisdiction of the Atiyat Court would be limited to the disputes relating to Atiyat grants as defined in the Enquiries Act. (Para 165) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Banking - The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non. (Para 11) United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Banking Law - Bank's Liability for acts of employees - Acts of bank/post office employees, when done during their course of employment, are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person who is damnified by the fraud and wrongful acts of the officers of the bank/post office. Post office / bank, can and is entitled to proceed against the officers for the loss caused due to the fraud etc., but this would not absolve them from their liability if the employee involved was acting in the course of his employment and duties. (Para 37) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Banking Law - Bank's Liability for acts of employees - What is relevant is whether the crime, in the form of fraud etc., was perpetrated by the servant/employee during the course of his employment. Once this is established, the employer would be liable for the employee's wrongful act, even if they amount to a crime. Whether the fraud is committed during the course of employment would be a question of fact that needs to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 38) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Blacklisting - "Debarment" is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission. It is for the State or appropriate authority to pass an order of blacklisting/debarment in the facts and circumstances of the case - "Debarment" is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. (Para 8.7 and 9.1) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Blacklisting - Guidelines issued by Odisha Government that blacklisting period per offence shall be limited to three years subject to an overall maximum cumulative period of ten years for multiple offences - Disapproved - Duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. Seriousness of the lapse and the incident and/or gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to the incident should be the relevant considerations. In a given case, it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse and/or negligence, a major incident would have taken place. In such a case, it may be the contractor's first offence, in such a case, the period/duration of the blacklisting/banning can be more than three years. However, as the said guidelines are not under challenge, we rest the matter there and leave it to the State Government to suitably amend and/or modify the said office memorandum. However, what we have observed above can be a guide while determining the period of debarment/blacklisting. (Para 9.1) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Blacklisting - Show cause notice was issued upon the contractor by which the contractor was called upon to show cause why he be not blacklisted; the show cause notice was replied to by the contractor and thereafter, after considering the material on record and the reply submitted by the contractor and having found the serious lapses which led to a serious incident in which one person died and eleven others were injured, the State Government took a conscious decision to blacklist the contractor. Therefore, it cannot be said the order blacklisting the contractor was in violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 8.5) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 - Regulation 116 - The width and amplitude of Regulation 116 cannot be restricted by interpreting the word 'deviation' as having lesser scope than exemption. 'Deviation' from the Regulations would amount to either exemption or relaxation. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Division Bench that the order dated 13.02.2019 cannot be said to have been issued beyond the power conferred by Regulation 116 of 2010 Regulations. Muhammed A.A. v. State of Kerala | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise could not have invoked the powers under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 for confiscation of land, buildings etc., when on such date, the said Rule 173Q(2) was not in the Statute books, having been omitted by a notification dated 12.05.2000. (Para 47) Punjab National Bank v. Union of India | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - An injunction action can be initiated even after a certificate is issued under the Cinematograph Act. The Court may examine the film and judge whether its public display, breaches the norms of decency or contravenes the law. A film which is defamatory or indecent or breaches copyright cannot be allowed to be exhibited only because a certificate has been issued. The examples are of course illustrative. (Para 10) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Guidelines for certification of films - A book or a film that illustrates the consequences of a social evil must necessarily show that social evil. A film that carries a message and depicts social circumstances of a group of underprivileged women is not impermissible. (Para 11) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - SLP Against Bombay High Court order refusing to grant interim injunction against release of the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" - Dismissed - The film certificate issued by the CBFC prima facie shows that the film is not defamatory. Prima facie, it appears that the movie is an artistic expression within the parameters of law. (Para 25) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Cinematograph Act, 1952 - The fact that the film has been certified by CBFC, which comprises of a body of experts prima facie shows compliance with the requirements of the guidelines. (Para 13) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Civil Litigation - Eviction order passed in 1989 yet not permitted to be executed by the judgment debtor by initiating the proceedings one after another - This is a clear example of the abuse of the process of law and the Court and not permitting the judgment -creditor to get the benefit under the decree which is passed in his favour in the year 1989 - Special Leave Petitions dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs.25,000/ -. M. Chinnamuthu v. Kamaleshan @ Shanmugam | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209

Civil Litigation - The judgment -creditor is entitled to enjoy the fruit of the litigation within a reasonable time - In our justice delivery system, the real litigation starts only after the decree is passed and the judgment -creditor has to wait for number of years for enjoying the fruit of the decree and the litigation. If such a delayed tactics is permitted, the litigant would lose the confidence in the justice delivery system. Every litigation has to put to an end at a particular time. M. Chinnamuthu v. Kamaleshan @ Shanmugam | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209

Civil Suit - Adverse Possession - Suit for declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership – Maintainable. Darshan Kaur Bhatia v. Ramesh Gandhi | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 246

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 3 - Non -joining of necessary parties is fatal. (Para 18) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order II Rule 2,3 - Joinder of causes of action - Order II Rule 3 does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit. The failure to join together all claims arising from a cause of action will be visited with consequences proclaimed in Order II Rule 2 - The Code of Civil Procedure indeed permits a plaintiff to join causes of action but it does not compel a plaintiff to do so. (Para 16, 17) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - A mere clever drafting would not permit the plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. (Para 10) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw SC 143

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Order XXIII Rule 3A - At the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the only thing which was required to be considered is whether the suit would be maintainable or not and that the suit challenging the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC - Court is not required to consider on merits the validity of the Compromise Decree. (Para 6) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw SC 143

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the procedure adopted by the Execution Court that did not invite objections under Order XXI Rule 34 from Judgment debtor to draft sale deed produced by Decree holder - Allowed - Clearly contravenes the salutary provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 - The objections of the appellant to the draft sale deed to be considered. Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI - Execution - While it is true that the court must be diligent in the matter of executing a decree passed after adjudication which spans a long period of time, it is also the duty of the court to execute the decree as it is and in accordance with law - Though, it is indeed open to the executing court to construe the decree; it cannot go beyond the decree. (Para 11, 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 34 - It is the duty of the court to cause the draft to be served upon the judgment debtor and to apply its mind and to make alterations in the draft, if needed, when objections are filed - It will be thereafter that the decree holder is to deliver it to the court with the alterations if any made by the court, on proper stamp paper, if required and the execution of the document is effected by the court or the officer appointed. (Para 10 -11) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 34 - Order XXI Rule 34 cannot be diluted and any such departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further litigation. (Para 14) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 3A - A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable. (Para 8) Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw SC 143

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 2­A - contempt of a civil nature can be made out under Order XXXIX Rule 2­A CPC not when there has been mere "disobedience", but only when there has been "wilful disobedience". The allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere "disobedience" but "wilful" and "conscious" - The power must be exercised with caution rather than on mere probability. Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 10 - Application under Section 10 CPC , by its very nature, requires immediate consideration and before any other steps in the suit - If the prayer made in the application moved under Section 10 were to be granted, the trial of the subject suit is not to be proceeded with at all. (Para 26) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Perversity in arriving at a factual finding gives rise to a substantial question of law, attracting intervention of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC - There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a question of fact provided the court is satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below stood vitiated by non -consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach to the matter i.e. that the findings of fact are found to be perverse. Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Consent Decree - The Court can entertain an Application under Section 151 of the CPC for alterations/ modification of the consent decree if the same is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding. (Para 13) Ajanta LLP v. Casio | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Even assuming there is a mistake, a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree. (Para 13) Ajanta LLP v. Casio | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Consent Decree - A judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the Court at the end of a long drawn out fight. A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment. A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. (Para 12) Ajanta LLP v. Casio | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 153A - Order XLI Rule 41 - An application before the Trial Court for correction of a decree could be maintained only if the appeal was to be decided by the High Court under Rule 11, Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. B. Boraiah v. M.G. Thirthaprasad | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 153A - The Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for correction of decree passed by the High Court in the first appeal and cross objection - In such a case, the application for correction could be maintained only before the High Court where the decree has been finally confirmed. B. Boraiah v. M.G. Thirthaprasad | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 160

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The rules of procedure are essentially intended to subserve the cause of justice and are not for punishment of the parties in conduct of the proceedings. (Para 26.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - While procedure is said to be the handmaiden of justice and substantial justice must prevail and the former may take the backseat, failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree holder realising the fruits of the decree. (Para 1) Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against High Court order setting aside criminal proceedings on the ground that taking cognizance by magistrate was barred by limitation - Allowed - The High Court made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009 - Rejected the contention that Sarah Mathew's case requires reconsideration on the ground that some of the factors related with Chapter XXXVI CrPC have not been considered. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant -With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181 (Para 27 -29)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - Default Bail - Filing of a charge -sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 CrPC - An accused cannot demand release on default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days. (Para 10) Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - Default Bail - There is no additional requirement of cognizance having to be taken within the period prescribed under proviso (a) to Section 167(2), CrPC, failing which the accused would be entitled to default bail, even after filing of the charge -sheet within the statutory period. (Para 15) Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) Proviso - The accused continues to be in the custody of the Magistrate till such time cognizance is taken by the court trying the offence, which assumes custody of the accused for the purpose of remand after cognizance is taken. Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Magistrate to have due regard to both the reports, the initial report which was submitted under Section 173(2) as well as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). It is thereafter that the Magistrate would have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused have committed an offence. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(2) - Evidentiary Value of a Final Report - Final Report, is nothing but a piece of evidence. It forms a mere opinion of the investigating officer on the materials collected by him. He takes note of the offence and thereafter, conducts an investigation to identify the offender, the truth of which can only be decided by the court - The final report itself cannot be termed as a substantive piece of evidence being nothing but a collective opinion of the investigating officer. (Para 25, 37) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - The evolution of legal position and norms for dealing with the question of sentencing and the connotations of 'special reasons' for awarding death sentence discussed - Court has found it justified to have capital punishment on the statute to serve as deterrent as also in due response to the society's call for appropriate punishment in appropriate cases but at the same time, the principles of penology have evolved to balance the other obligations of the society, i.e., of preserving the human life, be it of accused, unless termination thereof is inevitable and is to serve the other societal causes and collective conscience of society. This has led to the evolution of 'rarest of rare test' and then, its appropriate operation with reference to 'crime test' and 'criminal test'. The delicate balance expected of the judicial process has also led to another mid -way approach, in curtailing the rights of remission or premature release while awarding imprisonment for life, particularly when dealing with crimes of heinous nature. (Para 40) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - When the accused is not shown to be a person having criminal antecedents and is not a hardened criminal, it cannot be said that there is no probability of him being reformed and rehabilitated - His unblemished jail conduct and having a family of wife, children and aged father would also indicate towards the probability of his reformation. (Para 43.1) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 436 -439 - Bail - Grant of bail, though a discretionary order, requires such discretion to be exercised in a judicious manner and on the application of certain settled parameters. More heinous the crime, greater is the chance of rejection of bail, though the exercise also depends on the factual matrix of the matter - The Court, amongst others, must consider the prima facie view of whether the accused has committed the offence, nature of the offence, gravity, likelihood of the accused obstructing in any manner or evading the process of justice. Grant of bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and protection of individual liberty in a criminal case. The prima facie examination is on the basis of analysis of the record, and should not be confused with examination in detail of the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person - When a person is before the Court and that too in a matter involving personal liberty, least what is expected is for such a person to be given the result one way or the other, based on the merit of his case and not push him to a position of uncertainty or be condemned without being heard, when it matters. Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - In the case of murder (under Section 302 IPC), it is expected that at least some reason would be given while reversing the order of the Trial Court, which had rejected the bail application by a reasoned order. (Para 4) Sabir v Bhoora @ Nadeem | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 210

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 468 - The relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Complainants are defendants in civil suits with regard to the same transactions - Complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC filed after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement - Ulterior motive of harassing the accused - Continuation of the present proceedings would amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law. (Para 22, 30) Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Case of fabrication of documents can't be quashed saying there is no revenue loss to state. Missu Naseem v. State of Andhra Pradesh | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 132

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Although it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR. (Para 19) Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P. | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies. (Para 17) Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P. | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Though the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are wide and are in the nature of inherent power yet, the said power cannot be exercised suo motu in a sweeping manner and beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section. (Para 7) Registrar General v. State | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(6) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 44 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 17 - The objective of Section 44, UAPA, Section 17, NIA Act, and Section 173(6) is to safeguard witnesses. They are in the nature of a statutory witness protection. On the court being satisfied that the disclosure of the address and name of the witness could endanger the family and the witness, such an order can be passed. They are also in the context of special provisions made for offences under special statutes. (Para 24) Waheed -Ur -Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(6), 161, 207 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 44 - Even for protected witnesses declared so under Section 173(6) CrPC read with Section 44 UAPA, the accused can exercise their right under Sections 207 and 161 of the Cr.P.C to obtain copies of their redacted statements which would ensure that the identity of the witness not disclosed. Waheed -Ur -Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - The orders passed by the Supreme Court on 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 10.07.2020, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021 in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 applies in relation to the period prescribed for filing the written statement - Unrealistic and illogical to assume that while the Court has provided for exclusion of period for institution of the suit and therefore, a suit otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) could still be filed within 90 days from 03.10.2021 but the period for filing written statement, if expired during that period, has to operate against the defendant - the period envisaged finally in the order dated 23.09.2021 is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases where the delay is otherwise not condonable - The orders in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 were of extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances and their operation cannot be curtailed with reference to the ordinary operation of law. (Para 20.2) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - In the ordinary circumstances,On expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and no Court can make an order to extend such time beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons. (Para 16) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 10, Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - These provisions are intended to provide the consequences in relation to a defendant who omits to perform his part in progress of the suit as envisaged by the rules of procedure and are not intended to override all other provisions of CPC like those of Section 10. (Para 26.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Companies Act, 2013 - Memorandum of Association - A company's MOA is its charter and outlines the purpose for which the company has been created. The object clause in an MOA is considered to be representative of the purpose of a company and it is expected that the company will fulfill/attempt to fulfill the objects it has laid out in its MOA. (Para. 52) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Conflict of laws - If there is any inconsistency between two legislations, the later law, even if general in nature, would override an earlier special law. (Para 18) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Constitution of India, 1950 - After a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed with NOIDA, the petitioner made a representation to it requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed - High Court directed NOIDA to consider the representation - NOIDA rejected it - This was again challenged before High Court by the Petitioner - High Court dismissed writ petition - SLP challenging the said High Court judgment dismissed. Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Appeal against High Court order that set aside order issued by Municipality cancelling work order to appellant - Allowed - In absence of any evidence and material on record and there being disputed questions of facts the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order directing the Council to continue the work order. Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - State - The determination of a body as a 'State' is not a rigid set of principles. What is to be seen is whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, albeit if the control is mere regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it will not serve to make the body a State. Also, the presence of some element of public duty or function would not by itself suffice for bringing a body within the net of Article 12. (Para 6) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - State - Whether Automotive Research Association of India Is A State -The majority of the members of the Association are associated with the manufacturers of the automobiles or their components and are not in service of the government. They are private players and from the motor vehicle industry - The main objective and function of the association relate to motor vehicles which is not directly or indirectly a field connected with functions of the government - One function assigned to the Association, which is not the primary and forms a small fraction of their activities and functions performed by the Association, would not matter. An overall and holistic view of the functions and activities, including the primary function(s), should be taken into consideration - Association is not an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Further, the Government does not have deep and pervasive control over it. (Para 18 - 24) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - While exercising its functions on the administrative side, the High Court would also be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. (Para 39) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal By Special Leave is not a regular appeal - The Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is the scope of these appeals that this Court would enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by the Trial Court and approved by the High Court. (Para 20) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal By Special Leave - In an appeal by special leave, where the Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently returned the findings of fact after appreciation of evidence, each and every finding of fact cannot be contested nor such an appeal could be dealt with as if another forum for reappreciation of evidence - If the assessment by the Trial Court and the High Court could be said to be vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or in disregard to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice, the Court may, and in appropriate cases would, interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice but, such a course is adopted only in rare and exceptional cases of manifest illegality. (Para 20) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Appeal filed by power distribution companies assailing the order of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi which had directed the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to dispose of two applications filed by the parties before it. Displeased with the conduct of the appellants in the dispute the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lakhs) on them. Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. | 2 Feb 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Every action of a State is required to be guided by the touchstone of non­arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. Every action of a State is equally required to be guided by public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose highest duty is to the people of the country. The Public Authority is therefore required to exercise the powers only for the public good. (Para 100) Southern Power Distribution Power Company Ltd. v. Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd. | 2 Feb 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 117

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Non -consideration of the relevant material and consideration of the extraneous material would come into the realm of irrationality. An action which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 66) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Policy Decision - The policy of the State of Rajasthan is that while selecting Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks are to be given to such employees who have done similar work under the State Government and under the various schemes - Whether such bonus marks would also be available to the contractual employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States - The policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Para 22) Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Right to equality. The right against unfair State action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - There is a presumption of validity of the State action and the burden is on the person who alleges violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to prove the assertion - Where no plausible reason or principle is indicated nor is it discernible and the impugned State action appears to be arbitrary, the initial burden to prove the arbitrariness is discharged, thereby shifting onus on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable. If the State is unable to produce material to justify its action as fair and reasonable, the burden on the person alleging arbitrariness must be held to be discharged. (Para 55) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - There is no negative equality - If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. (Para 24) R. Muthukumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 140

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141 - Executive Decisions - When it comes to taking decisions which affect the rights of the citizens, it is the paramount duty of the Executive to enquire carefully about the implications of its decisions. At the very minimum, it must equip itself with the law which is laid down by the Courts and find out whether the decision will occasion a breach of law declared by the highest Court of the land - Respect for the decisions of the Courts holding the field are the very core of Rule of Law. Disregard or neglecting the position at law expounded by the Courts would spell doom for a country which is governed by the Rule of Law. (Para 22, 23) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Affirmed the judgment of the High Court but refused to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty - Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution the marriage declared as dissolved. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Consent of the parties is not necessary to declare a marriage dissolved. (Para 29 -31) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Relief can be moulded by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the declaration of a statute as unconstitutional. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - The issue whether a Judge sitting singly can pass an order granting decree of divorce to the parties on the basis of the Settlement Agreement in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India referred for adjudication by a larger Bench. (Para 2) Anamika Varun Rathore v. Varun Pratap Singh Rathore | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 125

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15 - Practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes and paternalism - Such attitudes have no place in our society; recent developments have highlighted areas hitherto considered exclusive male "bastions" such as employment in the armed forces, are no longer so. (Para 48) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licenced bars is void - This restriction directly transgresses Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - the latter provision both in its effect to the performers as well as the license owners. While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination. (Para 47, 49) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) - Gender -cap (i.e. four females and four males, in any performance) appears to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments,, belong to a certain class of society Such measures – which claim protection, in reality are destructive of Article 15 (3) as they masquerade as special provisions and operate to limit or exclude altogether women's choice of their avocation. (Para 42, 46) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16(2) - Compassionate Appointment Policy - Descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under the scheme of compassionate appointments - A policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant. (Para 9, 10) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16(2) - Descent - 'Descent' must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant's legitimacy as their child. (Para 9) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16(2) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16 - Compassionate Appointment - The condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee - Rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would violate Article 14 if the policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment. The circular creates two categories between one class, and it has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. Once the law has deemed them legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered under the policy. Exclusion of one class of legitimate children would fail to meet the test of nexus with the object, and it would defeat the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the family of the deceased employee. (Para 2,7) Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 194(3), 246 - Schedule VII List II Entry 39 and 40 - Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 - In Bimolangshu Roy v. State of Assam (2018) 14 SCC 408, it was declared that the Legislature of Assam lacked competence to enact it - Need no reconsideration - Entry 40 which relates to salaries and allowances of the Ministers of the State cannot be resorted to, for the purpose of justifying the legislative competence in enacting the Assam Act, 2004. (Para 14) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - "Person aggrieved" - Despite adequate opportunity, if a person has not lodged any objection at an appropriate stage and time, he could not be said to have been in fact, grieved. (Para 8.1) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - CISF Rules, 2001 ; Rule 52 - Appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, cannot be equated with power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial Review Of Disciplinary Proceedings - Limited jurisdiction - The High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. (Para 4) Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial Review Of Disciplinary Proceedings - Disciplinary Proceedings - The courts would not interfere unless the exercise of discretion in awarding punishment is perverse in the sense the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate - Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision -making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved - While exercising the power of judicial review, the court do not assume the role of the appellate authority. Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. The decision are also disturbed when it is found to be ailing with perversity. (Para 9) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial review of policy decisions - Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (Para 16) Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Natural justice - Natural justice is an important facet of a judicial review. Providing effective natural justice to affected parties, before a decision is taken, is necessary to maintain the Rule of law. Natural justice is usually discussed in the context of administrative actions, wherein procedural requirement of a fair hearing is read in to ensure that no injustice is caused. When it comes to judicial review, the natural justice principle is built into the rules and procedures of the Court, which are expected to be followed meticulously to ensure that highest standards of fairness are afforded to the parties. (Para 36) Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - High Courts to be more discerning / vigilant and/or cautious while entertaining writ petitions apparently filed in public interest - (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations; (2) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL; (3) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL; (4) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition; (5) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation; and (6) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. (Para 8.12) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - SLP challenging High Court order dismissing the writ petition challenging a tender condition - Dismissed - The clause cannot be said to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made and the same shall be applicable to all the bidders/tenderers and there is justification also shown providing such a clause. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Specific Performance - No writ of mandamus could have been issued virtually granting the writ for specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8) Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order - disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - The appellant was serving as a Branch Officer of a Bank. A complaint was made against him by one borrower of the Bank alleging that he had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/­ which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/ - when the borrower refused to give bribe demanded by him. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer held that most of the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by him. The Uttarakhand High Court also dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of removal from service. Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved. Therefore, the High Court order was modified to the extent substituting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - The State Government, as a juristic entity, has a right to protect its property through the writ court, just as any individual could have invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. (Para 125) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Appeal - Appeal against High Court judgment which dismissed special (writ) appeal without independent reasoning - Allowed - This is not the manner in which the Division Bench should have decided and disposed of the writ appeal. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction vested in it - Remanded for fresh consideration. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Appeal - There must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal. (Para 6) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Kumar Shukla | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Nature of the function performed by a body may be relevant for Article 226, considering the language of Article 226 which encapsulates a wide scope of legal right. (Para 22) Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Locus Standi - Registered Society of Professional Architects who claim to be teaching faculty in institutions imparting education in Architecture, filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for quashing the "Minimum Standards of Architectural Education Regulations, 2017 - High Court quashed the Regulations - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court while setting aside the High Court judgment observed: Due to the nature of its membership, the society could have been aggrieved only by the prescriptions affecting the teaching faculty. It could not have challenged the prescriptions with which they are not in any way concerned. (Para 19) Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA) | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - Delay and latches - High Courts directing the authorities to decide the representation though the representations are made belatedly - Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation - If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation - Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. (Para 4, 5) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petitions - No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. (Para 6) Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Appeal against High Court order which set aside the eviction order of Appellate Tribunal High Court - Allowed - The High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is impermissible - There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co. | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Scope of interference by the supervisory Court on decisions of the fact -finding forum - Situations when a finding on facts or questions of law would be perverse: (i) Erroneous on account of non -consideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. (Para 10 -11) Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co. | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Bail - Writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate granting bail - Judge granting bail and Addl. District Judge who refused to interfere with said order impleaded by name - Conduct of the petitioner deprecated - No reason why the petitioner should have filed this writ petition directly in this court. Balakram @ Bhura v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for the relief(s) prayed to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings/FIR ought not to have been filed - It is not expected that the relief which can be considered by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be considered in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Delay by itself cannot be used as a weapon to Veto an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - In a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self -restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a person complaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Court. This is subject to the power of the Court to relegate the party to other proceedings. (Para 7) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge - A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. (Para 9) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - The court has power of grant of compensation in the case of violation of Fundamental Rights. (Para 29) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 and 226 - Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review of a decision of the Full Court of a High Court is extremely narrow and we cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of the Full Court of a High Court. (Para 29) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 and 226 - Judicial Review - The principle of fairness has an important place in the law of judicial review and that unfairness in the purported exercise of power can be such that it is abuse or excess of power. The court should interfere where discretionary power is not exercised reasonably and in good faith. (Para 40) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Appeal against High Court Judgment allowing PIL in the matter of a title claim between a private party and the State - Allowed - The State clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants - Institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process. Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review - The dialogic process of judicial review can provide effective solutions which provide acceptable outcomes which promote harmony. (Para 9) Surat Parsi Panchayat Board v. Union of India | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi -One of the measures to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court. (Para 22) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 - Public Interest Litigation - PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general - Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts - Many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. (Para 21) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32, 226 and 14 - Judicial Review - Arbitrariness - The limited scope of judicial review is only to satisfy that the State action is not vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness and no more - It is not for the courts to recast the policy or to substitute it with another which is considered to be more appropriate - The attack on the ground of arbitrariness is successfully repelled by showing that the act which was done, was fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 55) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 342 - A person entitled to be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par with a person who is brought in by an incompetent Body, viz., the State in the manner done. (Para 8) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 342 - Scheme - Manner in which the members of the Scheduled Tribe are to be recognised - Power with the President after consultation with the State to specify the Tribes which are to be treated as Scheduled Tribes in that State or the Union Territory as the case may be. Parliament is empowered to include or exclude from the list. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 72 and 161 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432, 433 and 433A - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 45 and 53 - There can be imposition of life imprisonment without any remission till the last breath as a substitution of death sentence. (Para 3) Ravindra v. Union of India | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Constitution of India, 1950 - Manipur Assembly passed the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018 - The Manipur Legislature was competent to enact the Repealing Act, 2018. The saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 is struck down. However, this shall not affect the acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries under the 2012 Act till discontinuation of their appointments, which are hereby saved. (Para 26) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ Petition Challenging Bihar Government notification approving issuance of caste certificate to Lohar community - Allowed - Lohars were not included as members of the Scheduled Tribe right from the beginning and they were, in fact, included as members of the OBCs in the State of Bihar - Lohar is not same as Lohara. Including Lohars alongside 'Lohara' is clearly illegal and arbitrary - State to pay costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioners. Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219

Consumer Law - Transfer Petition filed seeking transfer of consumer complaints pending before Consumer fora to Bombay High Court - Dismissed - The consumer complaints are filed under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, such consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Yes bank v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 135

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - If the NCDRC is of the opinion that the Surveyor was an unnecessary party or the pleadings are contradictory, it should have struck down the said party. The striking of surveyor from the array of parties would not make the complaint disjoined, as it was duty of the NCDRC to strike of an unnecessary party. (Para 3) Brahmaputra Biochem Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Legislative history discussed - The legislative intent is to keep the commercial transactions out of the purview of the Act and at the same time, to give benefit of the Act to a person who enters into such commercial transactions, when he uses such goods or avails such services exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self ­employment. (Para 21 - 46) Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - The 'business to business' disputes cannot be construed as consumer disputes, thereby defeating the very purpose of providing speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. (Para 47) Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - The question, as to whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily, "commercial purpose" is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business ­to ­business transactions between commercial entities; that the purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit­ generating activity; that the identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive for determining the question as to whether it is for a commercial purpose or not. What is relevant is the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction and as to whether the same was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary. It has further been held that if the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and the consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, then the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of "generating livelihood by means of self -employment" need not be looked into. (Para 42) Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of 'consumer' as defined in the said Act, he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self -employment. (Para 45) Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 7B - Existence of an arbitral remedy under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum - It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration, but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the Act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019. (Para 16, 20) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - Scope of expression 'service' discussed - a service of every description would fall within the ambit of the statutory provision. (Para 9) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Act of 1986 is not a general law but a special law that has been enacted by Parliament specifically to protect the interest of consumers. [Overruled General Manager, Telecom v. M Krishnan, (2009) 8 SCC 481] (Para 18) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(42) - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - The insertion of the expression 'telecom services' in the definition which is contained in Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019 cannot, for the reasons which we have indicated be construed to mean that telecom services were excluded from the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Act of 1986 - Section 2(o) of the Act of 1986 wide enough to comprehend services of every description including telecom services. (Para 14, 20) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 67 Proviso - Onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act. (Para 34) ECGC Ltd. v. Mokul Shriram EPC JV | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Covid -19 - Performance of Dokhmenashini or funeral rights in the Dokhmas belonging to the Parsi Zoroastrian community - Agreed Protocol & Standard Operating Procedure For Handling Dead Bodies Of Parsi Zoroastrian Covid -19 Victims - Protocol and the Standard Operating Procedure comports with the tenets of the Zoroastrian faith, while according with the need expressed by the Union government for the maintenance of safety and hygiene in the context of the Covid -19 pandemic. Surat Parsi Panchayat Board v. Union of India | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Covid -19 - Vaccination - Centre's affidavit to the effect that production of an Aadhar card is not a mandatory pre -condition for availing of vaccination facilities - All concerned authorities shall act in pursuance of the stated policy. (Para 6) Siddharthshankar Sharma v. Union of India | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 147

Criminal trial - Circumstantial evidence - Motive - absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused - motive not relevant in a case of direct evidence. Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else - Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 11, 14) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Criminal Trial - Eye Witness - The evidence of eye -witness cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed. Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Criminal Trial - Long adjournments being given after the completion of the chief examination, only helps the defense to win them over at times, with the passage of time - The trial courts shall endeavor to complete the examination of the private witnesses both chief and cross on the same day as far as possible - The trial courts to take up the examination of the private witnesses first, before proceeding with that of the official witnesses. (Para 39) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Criminal Trial - Murder - Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228

Criminal Trial - The approximate time of death before examination, as indicated in the post -mortem report, cannot be applied as something of mathematical precision. (Para 36) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Criminal Trial - The evidence of the investigating officer is not indispensable. The evidence is required for corroboration and contradiction of the other material witnesses as he is the one who links and presents them before the court - Even assuming that the investigating officer has not deposed before the court or has not cooperated sufficiently, an accused is not entitled for acquittal solely on that basis, when there are other incriminating evidence available on record. (Para 25) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 129E - High Court which upheld the order passed by CESTAT finding that the appellant has not made pre -deposit - Dismissed - Rejected the contention of appellant that in view of the fact that the act relates to the year 2013, he must be governed by Section 129E prior to the substitution - When the appellant is not being called upon to pay the full amount but is only asked to pay the amount which is fixed under the substituted provision, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 129E - Under the new regime, the amount to be deposited to maintain the appeal has been reduced from 100% to 7.5% - The discretion which was made available to the appellate body to scale down the pre -deposit has been taken away - In regard to stay applications and appeals which were pending before any Appellate Authority prior to commencement of The Finance (No.2) Act 2014, Section 129E as substituted would not apply. (Para 8) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Disciplinary Proceedings - Bank employee was dismissed after conducting a disciplinary proceedings - Appellate authority dismissed his appeal - Industrial Tribunal held that the punishment awarded to the employee of dismissal is not commensurate with the charge levelled against him - In writ petition filed against Tribunal order, the High Court refused to interfere with the Order for the reason that the respondent employee by that time had retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2007. Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal order and observed: Merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence. (Para 11) United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right - The failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary - The requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non­arbitrariness, which is a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh, what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant - A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non­arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. (Para 40) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - In declaration of the law, the doctrine of prospective overruling can be applied by this Court to save past transactions under earlier decisions superseded or statutes held unconstitutional. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 14B - Any default or delay in the payment of EPF contribution by the employer under the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B - Mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities. (Para 17) Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund Organization | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 (Haryana State) - Constitutional Validity - Interim order passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court staying the implementation of the Act set aside - Stay of legislation can only be when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional - Sufficient reasons should be given for staying legislations. State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Evidence Act - Section 106 - Last Seen Theory - When 'last seen' evidence is cogent and trustworthy which establishes that the deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the accused; and is coupled with the evidence of discovery of the dead body of deceased at a far away and lonely place on the information furnished by the accused, the burden is on the accused to explain his whereabouts after he was last seen with the deceased and to show if, and when, the deceased parted with his company as also the reason for his knowledge about the location of the dead body. (Para 31) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Evidence Act, 1872 - "Matters" - Matters are necessary, concomitant material factors to prove a fact. All evidence would be "matters" but not vice versa. In other words, matters could be termed as a genus of which evidence would be a species. Matters also add strength to the evidence giving adequate ammunition in the Court's sojourn in deciphering the truth. Thus, the definition of "matters" is exhaustive, and therefore, much wider than that of "evidence". However, there is a caveat, as the court is not supposed to consider a matter which acquires the form of an evidence when it is barred in law. Matters are required for a court to believe in the existence of a fact - Matters do give more discretion and flexibility to the court in deciding the existence of a fact. Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - A mere non -examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it. (Para 31) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Chance Witness - A chance witness is the one who happens to be at the place of occurrence of an offence by chance, and therefore, not as a matter of course. In other words, he is not expected to be in the said place. A person walking on a street witnessing the commission of an offence can be a chance witness. Merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed though a little more scrutiny may be required at times. This again is an aspect which is to be looked into in a given case by the court. (Para 26) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Classification of evidence - circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc. Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Definition of "Proved" - The definition of the word "proved" though gives an impression of a mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act. This clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the "matters before it". The importance is to the degree of probability in proving a fact through the consideration of the matters before the court. What is required for a court to decipher is the existence of a fact and its proof by a degree of probability, through a logical influence. (Para 13) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Evidence Act is an "Adjective Law" highlighting and aiding substantive law - It is neither wholly procedural nor substantive, though trappings of both could be felt. (Para 12) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Hostile Witness - Testimony of a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party -A witness may depose in favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving through his chief examination, while later on change his view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would be cases where a witness does not support the case of the party starting from chief examination itself. This classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would become complete after the cross examination. Once evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact. Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it happened can also be considered, particularly in a situation where the chief examination was completed and there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an assessment, being a matter before it and come to the correct conclusion. (Para 21) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Related Witness - A related witness cannot be termed as an interested witness per se. One has to see the place of occurrence along with other circumstances. A related witness can also be a natural witness. If an offence is committed within the precincts of the deceased, the presence of his family members cannot be ruled out, as they assume the position of natural witnesses. When their evidence is clear, cogent and withstood the rigor of cross examination, it becomes sterling, not requiring further corroboration. A related witness would become an interested witness, only when he is desirous of implicating the accused in rendering a conviction, on purpose. (Para 28) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused - Burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in section 106 of the Evidence Act when the prosecution could not prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused. (Para 15 - 16) Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Definition of "Evidence" - Factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the existence of a fact. (Para 12) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Principles as to the circumstances under which a dying declaration may be accepted, without corroboration: (1) that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated; (2) that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; (3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; (4) that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; (5) that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character, and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties. State of U.P. v. Veerpal | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - There can be a conviction solely based upon the dying declaration without corroboration - If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration. State of U.P. v. Veerpal | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 33 - Section 33 is an exception to the general rule which mandates adequate facility for cross examining a witness. However, in a case where a witness after the completion of the chief examination and while subjecting him to a substantial and rigorous cross examination, did not choose to get into the witness box on purpose, it is for the court to utilize the said evidence appropriately. The issues over which the evidence is completed could be treated as such by the court and then proceed. Resultantly, the issues for which the cross examination is not over would make the entire examination as inadmissible. Ultimately, it is for the court to decide the aforesaid aspect . (Para 24) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it. Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the matters before it. (Para 17) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - When the court is convinced with the quality of the evidence produced, notwithstanding the classification, it becomes the best evidence. Such testimony being natural, adding to the degree of probability, the court has to make reliance upon it in proving a fact. (Para 29) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - When the court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point of view of a common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in the case. (Para 18) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Evidence Act, 1872 - While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters. (Para 20) Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Madras High Court Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996 - Rule 52 - A free copy may be supplied as per the requirement under the Family Courts Act but that is a far cry from holding that an appeal can be carried without a certified copy - Rejected argument that that an appeal can be maintained within thirty days even if it is in the absence of a certified copy. (Para 22, 23) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19, 20 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 12, 29(2) - The period spent in obtaining the copy can be excluded in calculating the period of limitation to file matrimonial appeals under Family Courts Act - Nothing inconsistent in Section 12 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act - Section 20 will not override the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Family Courts Act, 1984 - The Family Courts Act is not a standalone Act. It draws sustenance from Acts like the Hindu Marriage Act. This is for the reason that a petition within the meaning, for instance, of the Hindu Marriage Act, after a Family Court is established in India, is to be dealt with by the Family Court, on the grounds as provided under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Foreigners Act, 1946 - Appellant Engineer accused of facilitating visit by two Chinese citizens who were on tourist visas to Rewa Solar Plant Project site - No indication or allegation that the appellant was aware and had knowledge that the Chinese citizens had traveled on tourist visas - Criminal proceedings quashed. Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 14C - Abetment - Mere passivity and insouciance will not tantamount to offence of abetment - The word 'abet' is an essential ingredient - 'Abet' means to aid, to encourage or countenance. An abetment of the offence occurs when a person instigates any person to do that offence or engages with another person(s) in doing that thing. Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218

Fraud vitiates all actions. (Para 17) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

General Clauses Act, 1897 - The principles of the General Clauses Act can be made applicable to statutes made by the State Legislatures as well. (Para 20) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion - Merely because on account of the death of the appellant's mother, the respondent visited her matrimonial home in December 2009 and stayed there only for one day, it cannot be said that there was a resumption of cohabitation. (Para 11) Debananda Tamuli v. Smti Kakumoni Kataky | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion - The reasons for a dispute between husband and wife are always very complex. Every matrimonial dispute is different from another. Whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence. (Para 8) Debananda Tamuli v. Smti Kakumoni Kataky | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1) (ib) - Desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end - There should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home. (Para 7) Debananda Tamuli v. Smti Kakumoni Kataky | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Section 15 - Filing of appeal must be treated as having been presented within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act. The argument that not only must the appellant file the appeal, or prefer the appeal or present the appeal, but he must also ensure that the appeal comes on the judicial side of the High Court is clearly without any basis. (Para 27) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Sub -section (2) of Section 14 inter alia applies to a Will which may create independent and new title in favour of females for the first time and is not a recognition of a pre -existing right. In such cases of a restricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and Section 14(1) of the said Act will not operate in that sphere. (Para 30) Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) - The objective of Section 14(1) is to create an absolute interest in case of a limited interest of the wife where such limited estate owes its origin to law as it stood then. The objective cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self -acquired property is unable to execute a Will giving a limited estate to a wife if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of. If we were to hold so it would imply that if the wife is disinherited under the Will it would be sustainable but if a limited estate is given it would mature into an absolute interest irrespective of the intent of the testator. (Para 31) Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 115

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 37(1) - Explanation 1 contains within its ambit all such activities which are illegal/prohibited by law and/or punishable. (Para 17) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 37(1) - Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 - Pharmaceutical companies' gifting freebies to doctors, etc. is clearly "prohibited by law", and not allowed to be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1) - When acceptance of freebies is punishable by the MCI, pharmaceutical companies cannot be granted the tax benefit for providing such freebies, and thereby (actively and with full knowledge) enabling the commission of the act which attracts such opprobrium. (Para 33, 22) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 37(1) - Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 - Denial of the tax benefit cannot be construed as penalizing the assessee pharmaceutical company. Only its participation in what is plainly an action prohibited by law, precludes the assessee from claiming it as a deductible expenditure. (Para 27) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 and 376– Rape and Murder - Death Sentence - Abhorrent nature of crime alone cannot be the decisive factor for awarding death sentence - Due consideration to be given to the equally relevant aspect pertaining to mitigating factors before arriving at a conclusion that option of any other punishment than the capital one was foreclosed. (Para 42) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Tribunal - If irregularity or illegality committed by a Tribunal touches upon the jurisdiction to try and determine over a subject dispute is altogether beyond its purview, that question would go to the root of the matter and it would be within the jurisdiction of the superior court to correct such error. (Para 15) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Industrial Tribunal - The Tribunal could not go beyond the disputes that were referred to it - The scope of jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is wide and in appropriate cases it has the jurisdiction even to make a contract. (Para 14, 25) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Right of minority workmen to raise industrial dispute - A minority union of workers may raise an industrial dispute even if another union which consists of the majority of them enters into a settlement with the employer. (Para 20) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 18 - Binding nature of a settlement on all persons employed in an establishment discussed. (Para 16 - 17) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - Prior adjudication or recognition of the disputed claim of the workmen, proceedings for computation of the arrears of wages and/or difference of wages claimed by the workmen shall not be maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33C(2) - The benefit sought to be enforced under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act is necessarily a pre­existing benefit or one flowing from a pre­existing right. The difference between a pre­existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under Section 33­C (2) of the ID Act while the latter does not. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The principle of limited interference would apply to a proceeding of this nature under the 1947 Act. (Para 25) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176

Industrial Disputes Act,1947 - Section 33C(2) - Not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer - employee relationship - In an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. (Para 6) Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Difference between financial and operational creditors in the nature of their role in the Committee of Creditors - It is assumed the operational creditors will be unwilling to take the risk of restructuring their debts in order to make the corporate debtor a going concern. Thus, their debt is not seen as a long -term investment in the going concern status of the corporate debtor, which would incentivize them to restructure it, but merely as a one -off transaction with the corporate debtor for certain goods or services. (Para 32) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – IBC proceedings should not become recovery proceedings - IBC not akin to a recovery legislation for creditors, but is a legislation beneficial for the corporate debtor. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(20) and 5(21) - Operational Debt - Operational Creditor - A debt which arises out of advance payment made to a corporate debtor for supply of goods or services would be considered as an operational debt - The phrase "in respect of" in Section 5(21) has to be interpreted in a broad and purposive manner in order to include all those who provide or receive operational services from the corporate debtor, which ultimately lead to an operational debt. (Para 43, 45) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Limitation Act would apply to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Limitation does not commence when the debt becomes due but only when a default occurs. As noted earlier in the judgment, default is defined under Section 3(12) of the IBC as the non -payment of the debt by the corporate debtor when it has become due. (Para 59) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 13, 15 and 31 - The claim in respect of the demand was not lodged after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC - On the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT, all claims stood frozen - No claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 207

Insurance Law - The vehicle of the complainant (the insured) which was insured with Insurance Company was robbed. The next day, an FIR was registered by him. Accused were arrested and challan filed. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the insurance claim. The same was repudiated on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft. Though District Forum and State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint - NCDRC dismissed it by allowing insurer's revision petition. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC order and upheld the State Commission order. Jaina Construction Company v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 154

Insurance Law - Theft of Vehicle - Repudiation of Claim - The Insurance Company cannot repudiate claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft, when the insured had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle. Jaina Construction Company v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 154

Interim Relief - The court has to consider the prima facie case made out by the applicant for interim relief, both on the question of locus standi to sue, if questioned and on the merits of the prayer for interim relief. The Court also has to consider the balance of convenience. (Para 21) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Interpretation of Statute - Difference and distinction between a charging provision in a fiscal statute and an exemption notification - The principle that in the event of ambiguity in a provision in a fiscal statute, a construction favourable to the assessee should be adopted is concerned, shall not be applicable to construction of an exemption notification, when it is clear and not ambiguous - It will be for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification. Eligibility clause in relation to exemption notification must be given effect to as per the language and not to expand its scope deviating from its language. (Para 8.4) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Interpretation of Statute - Taxation Statutes - Exemption Notifications - The exemption notification should not be liberally construed and beneficiary must fall within the ambit of the exemption and fulfill the conditions thereof. In case such conditions are not fulfilled, the issue of application of the notification does not arise at all by implication - The notification has to be read as a whole. An exception and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and given a meaning according to legislative intendment - It is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the relevant policy and the exemption notifications issued in that regard.The Statutory provisions providing for exemption have to be interpreted in light of the words employed in them and there cannot be any addition or subtraction from the statutory provisions. (Para 8.1 - 8.3) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Interpretation of Statutes - Intention of legislature - Legislative intent in the enactment of a statute is to be gathered from the express words used in the statue unless the plain words literally construed give rise to absurd results. This Court has to go by the plain words of the statute to construe the legislative. (Para 11) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary | 16 Dec 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of law has two essential purposes: one is to clarify to the people governed by it, the meaning of the letter of the law; the other is to shed light and give shape to the intent of the law maker. And, in this process the courts' responsibility lies in discerning the social purpose which the specific provision subserves. (Para 34) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Interpretation of Statutes - Legal Fiction - When a legal fiction is employed by the legislature, it becomes a duty of the Court to interpret it and to give it meaning. In gleaning its meaning, the Court is duty bound to ascertain the purpose of this legislative device. The Court cannot allow its mind to be boggled in the matter of carrying the legal fiction to its logical end. But this is not the same as holding that the Court will not look to the object of the Act and, in particular, the fiction in question. (Para 36) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospectivity - A statute which affect substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective and unless textually impossible a statute which merely affects procedure is presumed to be retrospective. However, a statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights or liabilities is to be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided either expressly or by necessary implication. State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary | 16 Dec 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospectivity - Every statute is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. There is a presumption against retrospectivity. An express provision should ordinarily be made to make a statute retrospective. The presumption against retrospectivity may also be rebutted by necessary implication. (Para 7) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary | 16 Dec 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospectivity - The device of a legal fiction can also be used to introduce retrospective operation. Generally, it is considered that every statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary | 16 Dec 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Interpretation Of Statutes - Service Law - When the rules are specific and clear, there is no need for interpretation which may lead to a case of judicial legislation. (Para 13) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Interpretation of Statutes - Subordinate Legislation - A subordinate legislation must be interpreted to effectuate the statutory purpose and objective. (Para 21.1) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation - Exemption Entry - When the exemption Entry is clear and unambiguous, no external aid for interpretation is called for, whether in the form of Budget speech or any other notification under any other enactment. (Para 11) Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling v. Aakavi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. | 12 Jan 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 191

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxing Statutes - Principle of interpretation of taxing statutes – that they need to be interpreted strictly – cannot sustain when it results in an absurdity contrary to the intentions of the Parliament. (Para 33) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Interpretation of Statutes - The construct of the provision must depend on the context of the legislative intent and the purpose for which such dispensation has been envisaged. The setting in which the expression has been used in the concerned section of the Act would assume significance. (Para 16) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Interpretation of Statutes - When a provision of a statute is made subject to another provision by the legislature, this evinces an intent that where the latter provision is attracted, the former would give way. (Para 43) State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Judicial Service - The writ petitioner alleged that hostile transfer orders were passed as she did not act as per the demands of the supervising High Court judge. She complained that was faced with transfer from a Category 'A' city to Category 'C' city and also a Naxal affected area, in violation of the extant transfer policy of the High Court. Since the transfer would have prevented her from being with her daughter who was then appearing for the board exams, she was faced with no option but to resign. Later, she approached the Supreme Court asserting her right to be reinstated. The Supreme Court Held: Though, it may not be possible to observe that the petitioner was forced to resign, however, the circumstances would clearly reveal that they were such, that out of frustration, the petitioner was left with no other alternative. The petitioner's resignation from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior dated 15th July 2014, cannot be construed to be voluntary and as such, the order dated 17th July 2014, passed by the respondent No. 2, thereby accepting the resignation of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside; and the respondents are directed to re­instate the petitioner forthwith as an Additional District & Sessions Judge. Though the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, she would be entitled for continuity in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 15th July 2014. Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Jurisdiction - An ouster of jurisdiction cannot be lightly assumed unless express words are used or such a consequence follows by necessary implication. (Para 16) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - The plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the accused cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation. (Para 38) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - Date of Birth certificate be obtained after filing of the application under Section 7A of the Act cannot be relied upon. (Para 9) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 7A - Ossification test varies based on individual characteristics and hence its reliability has to be examined in each case - It cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a uniform standard for determination of the age of the union of epiphysis on account of variations in climatic, dietetic, hereditary and other factors affecting the people of the different States of India. (Para 15 -17) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12(3) - U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 - Birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility. The family register is not a birth certificate. Therefore, it would not strictly fall within clause (iii) of Rule 12(3) of the Rules. (Para 37) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - Injurious affection to property, in any other manner, may stand on a different footing from injurious affection to earnings. (Para 78) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - The six items covered by Section 23(1), which are to be taken into consideration by the court in determining compensation, can be summarized as follows: - (i) The market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) The damage to standing crops or trees, which are on the land at the time of the Collector taking possession; (iii) The damage sustained by reason of severing such land from the unacquired land; (iv) The damage sustained by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting the other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner or the earnings, of the person interested; (v) The reasonable expenses incurred by the person interested, in changing his residence or place of business, when he is compelled to do so in consequence of the acquisition; (vi) The damage bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession. (Para 31) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1) - What is injuriously affected at the time of Collector's taking possession of the land, may either be the unacquired portion of the immovable property or other movable property or even the earnings of the person interested. (Para 34) Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - An Award passed under Section 20 of the 1987 Act by the Lok Adalat cannot be the basis for invoking Section 28A. (Para 49) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The award which is passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be said to be an award passed under Part III. It is the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat which culminates in the award by the Lok Adalat. In fact, an award under Part III of the Act contemplates grounds or reasons and therefore, adjudication is contemplated. (Para 44) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The word 'Court' has been defined in the Act as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed a Special Judicial Officer to perform judicial functions of the court under this Act. The Court is not the same as a Lok Adalat. (Para 45) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 49 - Distinction between the scope of sub -section (1) and the scope of sub -section (2) of Section 49 discussed. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159

Law of Precedent - Constitution Bench Judgment - Once the majority opines in a particular matter, that is the judgment of the Constitution Bench. (Para 3) Ravindra v. Union of India | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Law of Precedents - A decision is an authority only for what it actually decides. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts, proved or assumed to be proved. The generality of the expressions found there, is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. (Para 93) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Law of Precedents - A judgment of a Court is precedent for the issue of law which is raised and decided. Words and phrases used in a judgment cannot be read in isolation, out of context. (Para 59) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Law of Precedents - The ratio decidendi is a rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. - One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. (Para 94) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Legal Maxims - Concept of dies non juridicus - A day which is regarded by the law as one on which no judicial act can be performed, or legal diligence used. [Referred to P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon] (Para 25.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - An Award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise decree. An Award passed by the Lok Adalat without anything more, is to be treated as a decree inter alia. (Para 47) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXII - An award unless it is successfully questioned in appropriate proceedings, becomes unalterable and non -violable. In the case of a compromise falling under Order XXIII Code of Civil Procedure, it becomes a duty of the Court to apply its mind to the terms of the compromise. Without anything more, the mere compromise arrived at between the parties does not have the imprimatur of the Court. It becomes a compromise decree only when the procedures in the Code are undergone. (Para 47) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Even when the Criminal Court refers the matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in order to make it executable, it will be treated as if it were a decree. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – If a Revenue Court or a Tribunal which, undoubtedly, fall under Section 2(aaa) of the 1987 Act were to refer a case to the Lok Adalat under Section 20(1) and an award is passed it may become the order of the court/tribunal. In other words, if the matter were finally concluded on a regular basis, that is, without reference to the Lok Adalat, it would be an order which would be passed. (Para 39) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – It is the province and duty of the Court in the ultimate analysis to give effect to the will of the legislature – Golden rule of interpretation of statutes along with other principles discussed - Referred to Union of India and Another v. Hansoli Devi 6 (2002) 7 SCC 273 (Para 30) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat - An Award passed by the Lok Adalat under 1987 Act is the culmination of a non -adjudicatory process. The parties are persuaded even by members of the Lok Adalat to arrive at mutually agreeable compromise. The Award sets out the terms. The provisions contained in Section 21 by which the Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe the Award with enforceability. In view of the provisions of Section 21 by which it is to be treated as a decree which cannot be challenged, undoubtedly, by way of an appeal in view of the express provisions forbidding it, unless it is set aside in other appropriate proceedings, it becomes enforceable. The purport of the law giver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree. Thus, the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a decree goes no further. (Para 37) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat - The Court as defined in Section 2 (aaa) can refer the case to the Lok Adalat. Such court, as already noticed, can be civil, criminal or a revenue court. (Para 38) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat - The Lok Adalat by virtue of the express provisions is only a facilitator of settlement and compromise in regard to matters which are referred to it. It has no adjudicatory role. (Para 27) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 19 - An Award passed under Section 19 of the 1987 Act is a product of compromise. Sans compromise, the Lok Adalat loses jurisdiction. The matter goes back to the Court for adjudication. Pursuant to the compromise and the terms being reduced to writing with the approval of the parties it assumes the garb of an Award which in turn is again deemed to be a decree without anything more. (Para 48) New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123

Legislation - Distinction between declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a Court of law and the repeal of a statute by the Legislature - On declaration of a statute as unconstitutional, it becomes void ab initio. Saving past transactions are within the exclusive domain of the Court - Though the consequence of repeal is also obliteration of the statute with retrospective effect on past transactions, the Legislature is empowered to introduce a saving clause in the repealing act. (Para 20) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Legislation - Repeal - There is no question of repeal of a statute which has been declared as unconstitutional by a Court. The very declaration by a Court that a statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed. The consequences of declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute have to be dealt with only by the Court. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Legislation - Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. (Para 9) Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256

Legislation -A statute which is made by a competent legislature is valid till it is declared unconstitutional by a court of law. After declaration of a statute as unconstitutional by a court of law, it is non est for all purposes. (Para 23) State of Manipur v. Surjakumar Okram | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113

Licensing and Performance for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rule, 1960 - The regulation on the overall number of performers, or even the dimensions of a stage (on which a performance can take place) cannot be characterized as a restriction; they can fall within the legitimate domain of the authority of the commissioner or the government which formulates such conditions. (Para 47) Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 29(3) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - The word 'proceedings' within the meaning of Section 29(3) is to be confined to the original proceeding and not appellate proceedings. (Para 21, 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 4 - If the prescribed period for any suit/appeal/application expires on day when the Court is considered 'closed', such proceedings may be instituted on the re -opening day - A day when the Court may not as such be closed in physical sense, it would be 'deemed' to be closed, if during any part of its normal working hours, it remains closed on that day for any particular proceedings or work. (Para 25.2.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - SLP Against High Court order which set aside the Trial Court order condoning delay of 465 days even after finding that delay has not been properly explained - Dismissed - Once it was found even by the trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - When it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone delay is required to be dismissed - he Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds - Still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. (Para 5) Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Rules, 1961 - Rule 107(14) - Once the borrower failed to apply to the Recovery Officer to set aside the auction sale on the grounds of material irregularity, mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the auction sale within a period of thirty days from the date of sale of immovable property, thereafter it was not open for the borrower to challenge the sale on the ground of material irregularity. (Para 7.1) Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Munjaji | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 183

Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 - Regulation 6.8 - Acceptance of freebies given by pharmaceutical companies is clearly an offence on part of the medical practitioner, punishable with varying consequences. (Para 18) Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Awarding compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering - Factors to be considered - Prolonged hospitalization; the grievous injuries sustained; the operations underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering - There cannot be straight jacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it varies from person to person who has suffered due to the accident. (Para 8) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Awarding compensation on the head of Loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the claimant and his family members - Factors - The position of the claimant post­ accident and whether, he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness which he was enjoying prior to the accident. To what extent the claimant has lost the amenities in life and the happiness will depend on the facts of each case. (Para 8.1) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Claimant is in coma even after a period of eight long years and that he will have to be permanently bedridden during his entire life - The amount of compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities and happiness of Rs.1,00,000/­ only is unreasonable and meagre - Enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/ - The pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money. However, still it will be a solace to award suitable compensation under different heads including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life - The amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/­ -. (Para 7, 8.1) Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident Compensation - Method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous - The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 2(30) - U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 - Section 2(h) - A financier who is in possession of the transport vehicle owing to non -payment of the loan amount is an "owner". (Para 8.3) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 56, 59 and 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Rule 174 (2) (c) made by the State Government to enable replacement of the vehicle under a Transport permit, does not impinge upon the powers of the Central Government with respect to fixation of the age of the vehicle, or fitness of the vehicle conferred upon it under Sections 56 and 59 in Chapter IV. The scrutiny under Rule 174 is only to enable the Authority to ensure that the subsisting permit is not interrupted and at the same time public interest is not compromised by deviating from the permit. The Rule will have no bearing on the power of the Central Government and as such it would not be ultra vires the provisions of the Act. (Para 13.6) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 72 - Grant of a transport permit is an important function that the statutory authority under the Act would perform. (Para 18.1) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - A scrutiny of the vehicle, stand alone, irrespective of its relation with the permit becomes an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of Section 83 - the scope of scrutiny is limited only to examining if the vehicle is of same nature as in the permit. (Para 13.2,13.3) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Rule 174(2)(c) [which enables road transport authority to reject an application for replacement if the proposed vehicle is older than the one covered under the existing permit] is valid - Rule 174 (2) (c) is neither ultra vires the Act, nor has overridden Section 83 - Kerala HC Judgment in Regional Transport Authority vs. Shaju [ILR 2017 (3) Ker. 720] set aside. (Para 1, 23, 24) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - The purpose and object of mandating replacement by a vehicle of the same nature in Section 83 is only to ensure that the scrutiny and the conditions that were undertaken and imposed at the time of the grant continue even during the subsistence of the permit Rule 174 (2) (c) is intended to ensure that the conditions under which a transport permit is granted is not diluted when the vehicle covered by the permit is sought to be replaced by a new vehicle. (Para 15) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - The vehicle which the Authority may not approve for replacement under section 83 on the ground that it is older than the vehicle covered under the permit, can be used as a transport vehicle within the State. There is no prohibition for such a usage as the said vehicle may continue to be fit and within the age limit prescribed by the Central Government. The rigour of Rule 174 (2) (c) is only in the context of a subsisting transport permit and not as a condition for transport vehicles as such. (Para 13.7) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 - Rule 174(2)(c) - Replacement of a vehicle during the subsistence and continuation of a transport permit is only an incident in the working of a transport permit. While addressing such an incident, the Authority cannot be oblivious of the history and background in which the permit is granted. (Para 21.2) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - The expression "same nature" is confined only to, mean "a bus by bus, a mini -bus by mini -bus and not bus by a minibus…." is not a correct way to read the provision. There is no need to restrict the meaning of an expression same nature - The phrase, of the same nature seen in the context of provisions proximate to Sections 83, relating to duration and renewals of permits (Section 81), transfer of permits (Section 82) lend clarity to the meaning of the expression. Same nature must necessarily relate to the same nature of the vehicle in the permit. The question to be asked is the nature of the vehicle under the permit. What kind of a vehicle was that? How was that connected to the permit granted? Does the new vehicle serve the same purpose as the old vehicle was serving under the permit? (Para 21.3, 13.4) Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Madras High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, in respect of multiplier of 3 upto the date of superannuation and thereafter multiplier of 8 keeping in view the dependency of life for 10 years. Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 24,33,064/ - with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (U.P.) - Section 9 - The requirement under law is to first pay the tax in advance as provided under Section 9 and thereafter to use the vehicle - It is 'pay the tax and use' and not 'use and pay the tax'. (Para 9) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (U.P.) - Sections 2(g), 2(h), 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 20A - A financier of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire -purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement. (Para 12) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (U.P.) - Sections 2(g), 2(h), 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 20A - If, after the payment of tax, the vehicle is not used for a month or more, then such an owner may apply for refund under Section 12 of the Act, 1997 and has to comply with all the requirements for seeking the refund as mentioned in Section 12, and 26 on fulfilling and/or complying with all the conditions mentioned in Section 12(1), he may get the refund to the extent provided in sub -section (1) of Section 12, as even under Section 12(1), the owner / operator shall not be entitled to the full refund but shall be entitled to the refund of an amount equal to one -third of the rate of quarterly tax or one twelfth of the yearly tax, as the case may be, payable in respect of such vehicle for each thirty days of such period for which such tax has been paid. However, only in a case, which falls under sub -section (2) of Section 12 and subject to surrender of the necessary documents as mentioned in sub -section (2) of Section 12, the liability to pay the tax shall not arise, otherwise the liability to pay the tax by such owner/operator shall continue. (Para 12) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Appeal against HC judgment upholding conviction of appellant under NDPS Act - Dismissed. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21 - The quantity of the neutral substance is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with the actual content of the weight of the offending drug while determining small and commercial quantities. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Karuna Shanker Puri | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 173

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, and physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act for testing the opium. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Natural Justice - Principles of - Quasi Judicial Authority - A quasi -judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication - An ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In all reasonable probability, such material would have influenced the decision reached by the authority - The actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. (Para 39) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Natural Justice - Principles of - Quasi Judicial Authority - The disclosure of material serves a three - fold purpose of decreasing the error in the verdict, protecting the fairness of the proceedings, and enhancing the transparency of the investigatory bodies and judicial institutions. (Para 51) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice is a part of the mandate of Article 14 itself - An exception to the principle would be a case where it is entirely futile to provide an opportunity. (Para 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Natural Justice- It is well known that natural justice is the sworn enemy of unfairness - It is expected of the Courts to be cautious and afford a reasonable opportunity to parties, especially in commercial matters having a serious impact on the economy and employment of thousands of people. (Para 37) Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - Definition of 'payment in due course' - Ascertainment of whether the act of payment is in good faith and without negligence is by examination of the circumstances in which payment is made. In other words, antecedent and present circumstances should not afford a reasonable ground for believing that the person to whom payment is made is not entitled to receive payment of the amount mentioned.9 While it would not be advisable or feasible to strait -jacket the circumstances, albeit value of the instrument, other facts that would raise doubts about the reliability and identity of the person entitled to receive payment and genuineness of the instrument in the payer's mind are relevant considerations. (Para 17) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - Definition of 'payment in due course' - The requirement in Section 10 that the payment should be in both good faith and without negligence is cumulative. Thus, mere good faith is not sufficient. (Para 17) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 10 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3(22) - Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act which defines 'good faith' as an act done honestly, whether done negligently or not, is not sufficient to hold that the payment made was 'payment in due course' under the NI Act. (Para 18) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 13 - Different principles apply for discharge from liability when the negotiable instrument is payable to bearer or has been indorsed in blank, in which case payment must be made in terms of Section 10, whereas when the negotiable instrument is payable to order, the maker, acceptor or endorser would be discharged from liability when payment is made to the 'holder' of the instrument. (Para 14) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 13 - Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988 - Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) are negotiable instruments in terms of Section 13 of the NI Act - It cannot be said that the KVPs are simple bearer instruments payable to anyone who presents the same for encashment and discharge. (Para 12, 29) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 790 - The employment of the terms "specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder" and such assertion about knowledge should be "said explicitly" as stated in A.C. Narayanan (supra) cannot be understood to mean that the assertion should be in any particular manner, much less only in the manner understood by the accused in the case. All that is necessary is to demonstrate before the learned Magistrate that the complaint filed is in the name of the "payee" and if the person who is prosecuting the complaint is different from the payee, the authorisation therefor and that the contents of the complaint are within his knowledge. What can be treated as an explicit averment, cannot be put in a straitjacket but will have to be gathered from the circumstance and the manner in which it has been averred and conveyed, based on the facts of each case. The manner in which a complaint is drafted may vary from case to case and would also depend on the skills of the person drafting the same which by itself, cannot defeat a substantive right. However, what is necessary to be taken note of is as to whether the contents as available in the pleading would convey the meaning to the effect that the person who has filed the complaint, is stated to be authorized and claims to have knowledge of the same. In addition, the supporting documents which were available on the record by themselves demonstrate the fact that an authorized person, being a witness to the transaction and having knowledge of the case had instituted the complaint on behalf of the "payee" company and therefore, the requirement of Section 142 of N.I. Act was satisfied. (Para 17, 14) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Entertaining a petition under Section 482 to quash the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate would be unjustified when the issue of proper authorisation and knowledge can only be an issue for trial. (Para 17) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 142 - When a company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant necessarily should be the Company which would be represented by an employee who is authorized. Prima­facie, in such a situation the indication in the complaint and the sworn statement (either orally or by affidavit) to the effect that the complainant (Company) is represented by an authorized person who has knowledge, would be sufficient - Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process. If at all, there is any serious dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorized or if it is to be demonstrated that the person who filed the complaint has no knowledge of the transaction and, as such that person could not have instituted and prosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial. (Para 17) TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 3 - 'Banker' includes any person acting as a banker and any post office savings bank. In terms of this section, a post office savings bank is a banker under the NI Act. (Para 11) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 8 - A holder means a person (i) entitled to possession of a promissory note, bill of exchange or a cheque, and (ii) entitled to sue the maker, acceptor or indorser of the instrument for the recovery of the amount due thereon in his name - The requirements of Section 8 are two -fold, and both requirements have to be satisfied. (Para 15) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 131 and 131A - The standard of care expected from a collecting banker does not require him to subject the cheque to a minute and microscopic examination, yet disregarding circumstances about the cheque, which on the face of it gives rise to suspicion, may amount to negligence on the part of the collecting banker. Further, the question of good faith and negligence is to be judged from the standpoint of the true owner towards whom the banker owes no contractual liability but statutory duty by these provisions - Allegations of negligence against the paying banker could provide no defence for the collecting banker who has not collected the amount in good faith and without negligence. (Para 20) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 15 and 16 - 'Indorsement', 'indorsee', 'indorser' and 'indorsement in blank' and 'in full' - Indorsement for the purpose of negotiation is made by the maker or holder of the negotiable instrument when he signs on the back or face of thereof, on a slip of paper annexed thereto or on a stamp paper for the purpose of negotiation. The person signing is called the indorser. If the instrument is signed by the indorser in his name only, it is an indorsement in blank. If the indorser also specifies the person to whom payment is to be made, the indorsement is said to be 'in full', and the person so specified is called the indorsee. (Para 12) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 8 and 78 - Payment made to a person in possession of the instrument, but not entitled to receive or recover the amount due thereon in his name, is not a valid discharge. (Para 15) Pradeep Kumar v. Post Master General | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - It is surprising that on the one hand, the bank managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was returned with the remark "account frozen" in respect of the same cheque. The bank account has been mentioned on the cheque and the endorsement to the effect "Account Frozen" will presuppose that an account existed". Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223

Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970 (U.P.) - Family register does not only contain date of birth but also keeps the records of any additions in the family, though the evidentiary value needs to be examined in each case - It is a question of fact as to how much evidentiary value is to be attached to the family register, but to say that it is entirely not relevant would not be the correct enunciation of law. The register is being maintained in accordance with the rules framed under a statute. (Para 35 -36) Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana | 15 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Partition - it is not the law that a co -owner cannot acquire his own independent or separate properties. (Para 29) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Partition - ouster - The possession of a co -owner however long it may be, hardly by itself, will constitute ouster. In the case of a co -owner, it is presumed that he possesses the property on behalf of the entire body of co -owners. Even non -participation of rent and profits by itself need not amount to ouster. The proof of the ingredients of adverse possession are undoubtedly indispensable even in a plea of ouster. However, there is the additional requirement in the case of ouster that the elements of adverse possession must be shown to have been made known to the co -owner. This is apparently for the reason that the possession of a co -owner is treated as possession of other co -owners. While it may be true that it may not be necessary to actually drive out the co -owner from the property - Mere continuance in the possession of a co -owner does not suffice to set up a plea of ouster. The possession of the co -owner will also be referable to lawful title. (Para 24) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Partition - Properties not in the possession of co -sharers/coparceners being omitted cannot result in a suit for the partition of the properties which are in their possession being rejected. (Para 11) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Partition - The law looks with disfavor upon properties being partitioned partially. The principle that there cannot be a partial partition is not an absolute one. It admits of exceptions. (Para 10) B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Partition Suit - In a suit for partition, the position of the plaintiff and the defendant can be interchangeable. Each party adopts the same position with the other parties - So long as the suit is pending, a defendant can ask the Court to transpose him as a plaintiff and a plaintiff can ask for being transposed as a defendant. (Para 12) Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Partition Suit - Plaintiff is not disentitled to relief in the second appeal merely on the ground that they have not challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court which denied their claims before the First Appellate Court. Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193

Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 30(5) - Sub -Section (5) of Section 30 shall not be applicable to a minor partner who was not a partner at the time of his attaining the majority and, thereafter, he shall not be liable for any past dues of the partnership firm when he was a partner being a minor. (Para 6) State of Kerala v. Laxmi Vasanth | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 30(5) - Sub -Section (5) of Section 30 shall be applicable only in a case where a minor was inducted as a partner and thereafter at the time of attaining the majority he continued as a partner in that case such a partner who has been continued is required to give six months' notice as provided under sub -Section (5) of Section 30. If such a person who has been continued as a partner at the time of attaining the majority does not give six months notice as per sub -Section (5) of Section 30, in that case, he is deemed to have been and/or he shall be continued or treated to have been continued as a partner and the consequences and the liability as per sub -Section (7) of Section 30 shall follow. (Para 6) State of Kerala v. Laxmi Vasanth | 9 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Penal Code, 1860 - Appeal filed by two accused concurrently convicted in a murder case by invoking Section 34 IPC - Allowed - They are entitled to the benefit of doubt on the ground that it cannot be with certainty held that they had common intention - Given the acts attributed to them, the assault by the main accused and the resultant outcome were unexpected. Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 - Point whether culpable homicide would tantamount to murder or not discussed. (Para 6) State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 - The fact that the accused gave several blows/multiple blows on the vital part of the body – head which resulted into grievous injuries and he used "Phakadiyat" with such a force which resulted in Skull fracture and a frontal wound on left side and wounds with 34 stitches on the left side of the skull extended from mid of the left side of the skull along with coronal sutures of 16 cm, we are of the opinion that the case would fall under Clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC. (Para 7) State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction under Section 302 - Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person - The evidence of the eye -witness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts - Do not find the present one to be a case of manifest illegality so as to call for interference. Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - A co -perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act. If the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention, he would not be liable - Merely accompanying the principal accused may not establish common intention - A co -perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act - The ambit should not be extended so as to hold a person liable for remote possibilities, which were not probable and could not be envisaged. (Para 13, 19) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be pre -arranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Relevant Facts - The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co -assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are satisfied. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Section 34 IPC comes into operation against the co -perpetrators because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/offence. A person is liable for his own acts. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - The expression "common intention" should also not be confused with "intention" or "mens rea" as an essential ingredient of several offences under the IPC - For some offences, mental intention is not a requirement but knowledge is sufficient and constitutes necessary mens rea. Section 34 IPC can be invoked for the said offence also - In some cases, intention, which is ingredient of the offence, may be identical with the common intention of the co -perpetrators, but this is not mandatory. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka | 16 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 - Accused was convicted under Section 354 IPC - Sessions Court/ High Court dismissed his appeal/revision - Before Apex Court the accused submitted that a compromise has been entered into between him and the complainant/victim - Dismissing his SLP, the Supreme Court held: No reason to grant any credence to such compromise which is being entered into after the conviction has been confirmed by the High Court. Bimal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against relatives of husband would simply result in an abuse of the process of law - If allegations made against them are general and omnibus, they do not warrant prosecution. (Para 19 - 21) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar | 8 Feb 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC - the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in -laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. (Para 18) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar | 8 Feb 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. (Para 22) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar | 8 Feb 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in -laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. (Para 12) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar | 8 Feb 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499 - Defamation - Exceptions. (Para 18) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Pension - High Court directed to pay pensionary benefits to an ad -hoc employee who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service - SLP filed by the State Dismissed - The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187

Police Force - Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside punishment of dismissal awarded by appellate authority and restoring lesser punishment awarded by disciplinary authority - Partly allowed - Punishment of dismissal imposed by the Appellate Authority was not grossly disproportionate to the quantum of the offence. Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Police Force - Discipline is the essence of the organization and structure of police force. No indulgence or latitude can be granted when the case is of violence and assault on the officer who had checked and reprimanded the respondent. To condone the misconduct will have ramifications. Discipline in the police force cannot be compromised. (Para 10) Union of India v. Managobinda Samantaray | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244

Practice and Procedure - Anticipatory Bail Applications - When an application for anticipatory bail accompanied by an application for ad -interim relief is listed before the court, it should decide the same one way or the other, so far as the ad -interim prayer or should have taken up for consideration after giving some reasonable time to the State. Even if admitted, the court should list the same for final disposal on a specific date - Not giving any specific date is not a procedure which can be countenanced. Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200

Practice and Procedure - In some High Courts, a practice is followed, that whenever a Judicial Officer having good track record tenders his/her resignation, an attempt is made by the Senior Judges of the High Court to counsel and persuade him/her to withdraw the resignation. Valuable time and money is spent on training of a Judicial Officer. Losing a good Judicial Officer without counselling him/her and without giving him/her an opportunity to introspect and re­think, will not be in the interest of either the Judicial Officer or the Judiciary - It will be in the interest of judiciary that such a practice is followed by all the High Courts. (Para 86) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Practice and Procedure - Long standing and consistent practice followed on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court - The advocates serve a notice of the proceedings filed in the Court even before it comes up before the Court - The Court acts upon such service effected by the advocate on proof thereof being produced in the form of an affidavit of service. (Para 8) Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta | 2 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120

Practice and Procedure - Procedure adopted by the High Court which, on the 'special mentioning' made by the Additional Public Prosecutor, directed transfer of the cases/final reports filed/pending in the Special Courts exclusively to deal with the Land Grabbing Cases to the respective jurisdictional Courts is unknown to law - The practice of passing such orders on a 'special mentioning' that too, in a disposed of matter is to be deprecated. (Para 4) Registrar General v. State | 23 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 204

Practice and Procedure - Special Leave Petitions - Whenever documents/ additional documents are to be relied upon are to be produced and as far as possible, they must be filed along with the Special Leave Petition. If for any reason the same have not been filed along with the Special Leave Petition then in that case the same shall be filed well in advance before the Special Leave Petitions are heard by the Courts. By not filing the application for additional documents at the time of filing the Special Leave Petition but filing the same at the last moment and on the previous day of the posting of the Special Leave Petition and many a time late in the evening causes great inconvenience to the Court. (Para 2 -4) Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mitrajyoti Deka | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231

Practice and Procedure - Stay of legislation - Stay of legislation can only be when the Court is of the opinion that it is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional - Sufficient reasons should be given for staying legislations. State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Practice and Procedure - The Delhi High Court made certain remarks on 'Make In India' while disposing a writ petition which it did not decide on merits - Partly allowing the appeal filed by Union of India, the Supreme Court expunged those remarks and observed: On the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made by the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against. Union of India v. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Practice and Procedure - The High Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them. (Para 3) Union of India v. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. | 17 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Practice and Procedure - Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of the principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open. All that is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect. Such proceedings are not terminated and are usually remitted back. Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC | 1 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114

Precedents - A decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court cannot be questioned on certain suggestions about different interpretation of the provisions under consideration - The binding effect of a decision of the Supreme Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced, was actually decided therein. Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni | 28 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248

Premature Release - Relevant Considerations - Prior criminal history, conduct and behaviour in jail, possible danger to society, etc. are relevant considerations - The application has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the applicant was convicted of the offence. (Para 6, 7) Sharafat Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17A - Section 17A does not have retrospective operation - It could not possibly have been the intent of the legislature that all pending investigations upto July, 2018 should be rendered infructuous. (Para 11 -12) State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary | 16 Dec 2021 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act - The Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. (Para 7) K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana | 21 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5 - The satisfaction to be recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 5 of the PMLA is in two respects. The first is that the property in question had been acquired through proceeds of crime and involved in an offence of money laundering; and the second satisfaction specific in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act is that the owner/occupant of the property, who is in possession, is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with the same in any manner. This satisfaction is recorded for the purpose of interim arrangement during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings for securing the property in question. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The fact that the provisional attachment order is set aside by the High Court, does not per se result in nullifying the adjudication proceedings, which, can proceed and need to be taken to its logical end by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The power to provisionally attach tainted property is only of the authorised officer upon being satisfied about the existence of circumstances referred to in Section 5(1). Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5, 17 and 18 - The adjudication gets triggered after the complaint under Section 5(5) is filed before the adjudicating authority or on an application under Section 17(4) and also 18(10) of the Act. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 8 -The adjudication under Section 8 entails finally in confiscation of the tainted property or release thereof. Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Section 6 - Once, prima facie, it appears from the material before the Court that the appellant was barely thirteen years of age on the date when the alleged offence took place, both the grounds, namely that "there was a love affair" between the appellant and the second respondent as well as the alleged refusal to marry, are circumstances which will have no bearing on the grant of bail. Having regard to the age of the prosecutrix and the nature and gravity of the crime, no case for the grant of bail was established. The order of the High Court granting bail has to be interfered with since the circumstances which prevailed with the High Court are extraneous in view of the age of the prosecutrix, having regard to the provisions of Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO. X (Minor) v. State of Jharkhand | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 194

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner - Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. (Para 10) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - No leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed the offences under the POCSO Act, 2012 and particularly when the same is proved by adequate evidence before a court of law - By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. (Para 10) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3(b) - Penetrative sexual assault - When it has been established and proved that the accused penetrated his finger in the vagina and because of that the victim girl felt pain and irritation in urination as well as pain on her body and there was redness and swelling around the vagina found by the doctor, the case would fall under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act. (Para 8) Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142

Public Auction - The sale pursuant to the public auction can be set aside in an eventuality where it is found on the basis of material on record that the property had been sold away at a throw away price and/or on a wholly inadequate consideration because of the fraud and/or collusion and/or after any material irregularity and/or illegality is found in conducing/holding the public auction. After the public auction is held and the highest bid is received and the property is sold in a public auction in favour of a highest bidder, such a sale cannot be set aside on the basis of some offer made by third parties subsequently and that too when they did not participate in the auction proceedings and made any offer and/or the offer is made only for the sake of making it and without any serious intent. - If the auction/sale pursuant to the public auction is set aside on the basis of frivolous and irresponsible representations made by such persons then the sanctity of a public auction would be frustrated and the rights of a genuine bidder would be adversely affected. (Para 8.2) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Public Auction - Under normal circumstances, unless there are allegations of fraud and/or collusion and/or cartel and/or any other material irregularity or illegality, the highest offer received in the public auction may be accepted as a fair value. Otherwise, there shall not be any sanctity of a public auction. (Para 8.8) K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Public Employment - Appointment - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which refused to interfere with cancellation of appointment of appellant judicial officer who could not join before prescribed date due to nationwide lockdown imposed in view of covid -19 pandemic - Allowed - It is not a case where there is a complete dearth of any explanation by the candidate - There was considerable confusion also about what a person could do and what a person could not do during the time of the lockdown. It was an unprecedented situation which affected the nation - Impugned notification quashed and appointment restored - The appellant will not be entitled to claim seniority/backwages. Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Public Employment - Appointment - There is no absolute right with the candidate to insist that he should be permitted to join beyond the date - But there is no law which would support the cancellation of the candidature of the selected candidate if he seeks to join beyond a particular point of time. (Para 18, 16) Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Public Employment - Fairness demands that public bodies, as model employers, do not pursue untenable submissions. In such cases, a concession, which is based on law, and accords to a just interpretation of the concerned law and/or rules, is sustainable. However, it is altogether another thing for a public employer, whose conduct is questioned, and who has succeeded on the merits of the case before the lower forum to voluntarily agree, in an unreasoned manner, to a compromise. The harm and deleterious effect of such conduct is to prioritize the claim of those before the court, when it is apparent that a large body of others, waiting with a similar grievance (and some of whom probably have a better or legitimate claim on merits to be appointed) are not parties to the proceedings. In such cases, a compromise is not only unjustified, it is contrary to law and public interest. (Para 20) R. Muthukumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 140

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2017 - Regulation 9 - Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2017 is not ultra vires the Act or is otherwise not invalid - The delegation of powers in the single member of RERA to decide complaints filed under the Act even otherwise flows from Section 81 of the Act and such delegation can be made in absence of Regulation 9 also. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - This shall be applicable in a case where proceedings before the RERA authority are initiated by the homer buyers to protect their rights. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - In the event of conflict between RERA and SARFAESI Act the provisions contained in RERA would prevail. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - This shall be applicable in a case where proceedings before the RERA authority are initiated by the homer buyers to protect their rights. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - RERA would not apply in relation to the transaction between the borrower and the banks and financial institutions in cases where security interest has been created by mortgaging the property prior to the introduction of the Act unless and until it is found that the creation of such mortgage or such transaction is fraudulent or collusive. Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority | 14 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - Appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of the said community alone. If any person other than a member of the reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an infringement of the rights of the genuinely deserving members of the said community - Even the applicants applying under the general categories could be adversely affected. (Para 9) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Section 4 - The mere fact that the Law Giver has used the word 'voidable', cannot, in the context, detract from the gravity of the matter. The matter is not to be judged from the need for an act by the employer - In a situation where the law provides that the appointment is voidable, an act of the employer seeking to avoid the appointment is all that is required. (Para 9, 16) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka) - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to interfere with order terminating services of appellant after finding that she does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community to which she applied and was given appointment - Disposed of - To allow an usurper to continue being a palpable illegality and a constitutional sin, in the context, action by the competent authority terminating the services is perfectly valid - However, amounts sought to be recovered shall not be recovered from the appellant. Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - Regulation 9, 10 - Consideration of the report of the investigating authority which is submitted under Regulation 9 is one of the components guiding the Board's satisfaction on the violation of the regulations - the investigation report is not merely an internal document - The Board forms an opinion regarding the violation of Regulations after considering the investigation report prepared under Regulation 9. (Para 21, 51) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - Regulation 9 - Whether an investigation report under Regulation 9 of the PFUTP Regulations must be disclosed to the person to whom a notice to show cause is issued ? - The Board shall be duty -bound to provide copies of such parts of the report which concern the specific allegations which have been levelled in show cause notice. (Para 52) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - Where some portions of the enquiry report involve information on third parties or confidential information on the securities market, the Board cannot for that reason assert a privilege against disclosing any part of the report - Board can withhold disclosure of those sections of the report which deal with third -party personal information and strategic information bearing upon the stable and orderly functioning of the securities market. (Para 51) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 - The right to disclosure is not absolute. The disclosure of information may affect other third -party interests and the stability and orderly functioning of the securities market. It should prima facie established that the disclosure of the report would affect third -party rights and the stability and orderly functioning of the securities market. The onus then shifts to the noticee to prove that the information is necessary to defend his case appropriately. (Para 51) T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11E - Provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act of 1944 - secured creditor will have priority over the dues of the Central Excise Department. (Para 43, 44, 47) Punjab National Bank v. Union of India | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1) - It is open to the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can appoint an advocate commissioner to assist him/her in execution of the order passed under Section 14(1) - Advocate must be regarded as an officer of the court and, in law, subordinate to the concerned CMM/DM within their jurisdiction. (Para 44) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1) - Being an officer of the court and appointed by the CMM/DM, the acts done by the Advocate Commissioner would receive immunity under Section 14(3) of the 2002 Act — as an officer authorised by the CMM/DM - There must be a presumption that if an advocate is appointed as commissioner for execution of the orders passed by the CMM/DM under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act, that responsibility and duty will be discharged honestly and in accordance with rules of law. (Para 42) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14(1A) - Officer subordinate - "Functional subordination" test applied - There is intrinsic de jure functional subordinate relationship between the CMM/DM and the advocate being an officer of the court - It does not follow that the advocate so appointed needs to be on the rolls in the Office of the CMM/DM or in public service. (Para 42) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - Taking of possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity is a ministerial act. (Para 28) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - While entrusting the act of taking possession of the secured assets consequent to the order passed under Section 14(1) of the 2002 Act to any officer subordinate to him, the CMM/DM ought to exercise prudence in appointing such person who will be capable of executing the orders passed by him. Merely because he has power to appoint "any" officer subordinate to him, it would not permit him to appoint a peon or clerk, who is incapable of handling the situation. (Para 30) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13 (8) - By paying the highest bid amount / reserve price, the borrower cannot be discharged of its liability of the outstanding due to be paid to the bank - Unless and until he was ready to deposit / pay the entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with the secured creditor, the borrower cannot be discharged from the entire liability outstanding. (Para 7.1) Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253

Service Law - CUSAT - Director/HOD of Cochin University a teacher who was being considered for HOD on a rational basis would not be prohibited from being considered for appointment when second rotational term becomes due if he/she during the first term makes a request of being relieved from the responsibility for academic reason. Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. v. Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 145

Service Law - Differential pay scale along with a process of selection qua suitability fixing eligibility criteria are the factors to determine whether a particular post is the same as the other or a promotional one. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Premature Retirement - The entire service record is to be taken into consideration which would include the ACRs of the period prior to the promotion. The order of premature retirement is required to be passed on the basis of entire service records, though the recent reports would carry their own weight. (Para 15) Central Industrial Security Force v. HC (GD) Om Prakas | 4 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 128

Service Law - Promotion - A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process - There can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules - A right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. (Para 18) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen. Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Law - Transfer - Normally an order of transfer, which is an incident of service should not be interfered with, unless it is found that the same is mala fide - Mala fide is of two kinds — one 'malice in fact' and the second 'malice in law'. When an order is not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground, such an order would not be sustainable in law. (Para 61) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a "golden handshake" between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. (Para 16) Union of India v. Manpreet Singh Poonam | 8 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254

Service Tax - Whether contract is for job work or for supply of manpower - Agreement has to be read as a composite whole - In this case, though ostensibly, the agreement contains a provision for payment on the basis of the rates mentioned in Schedule II, the agreement has to be read as a composite whole. On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour. An attempt has been made to camouflage the contract as a contract for job work to avail of the exemption from the payment of service tax. The judgment of the Tribunal does not, in the circumstances, suffer from any error of reasoning. (Para 17) Adiraj Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune II | 18 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 190

Show cause notice - Fundamental purpose behind the serving of a show -­cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. (Para 8.6) State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 21(5) - The scope of Section 21 (4) and (5) was examined by this Court in Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex and Another (supra). This Court referred to the Law Commission of India's recommendation that in no case the compensation should be decreed, unless it is claimed by a proper pleading. However, the Law Commission was of the opinion that it should be open to the plaintiff to seek an amendment to the plaint, at any stage of the proceedings in order to introduce a prayer for compensation, whether in lieu or in addition to specific performance. In the said case no claim for compensation for breach of agreement of sale was claimed either in addition to or in substitution of the performance of the agreement. Admittedly, there was no amendment to the plaint asking for compensation either in addition or in substitution of the performance of an agreement of sale. (Para 21) Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. v. B.P.PLC | 18 Feb 2022 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 21(5) - Whether compensation can be granted in lieu of specific performance unless claimed in the plaint - Supreme Court disallows claim for compensation as it was not specifically claimed in the plaint. Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. v. B.P.PLC | 18 Feb 2022 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - If the law or the pension scheme in question requires an application to be accompanied by Non -availability of Record Certificate (NARC), then in absence of the same, the application, if not considered, cannot be faulted. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Mere fact that the State Government has granted pension under some freedom fighters pension scheme of the State Government would not, by itself, entitle him to claim under the scheme of the Central Government, unless he fulfills the conditions of the Central Government Scheme. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - The scheme requires the State Government to not merely forward the application but recommend such application for grant of pension. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Those persons who had participated in the freedom struggle of our country, because of which we got independence, should certainly be honoured and if they are entitled to any benefits, which includes pension, they should definitely be provided such benefit. However, such benefits should be awarded only to those persons who are entitled for the same under any Scheme of the Government. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Krishna Modi | 3 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151

Tender - Owner should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless it is found to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made. The bidder/tenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him - It is an offer to the prospective bidder/tenderer to compete and submit the tender considering the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender document. Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. | 11 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295

Torts - Civil Defamation - Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 306 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499 - Defamation - Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act which speaks of the rights of administrators and executors of the estate of the deceased, does not bar family members and near relatives covered by Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code from seeking injunction - A right in tort may arise when any imputation concerning a deceased person harms the reputation of that person, if living or is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family members or other near relatives. (Para 19) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Torts - Defamation - Mere hurting of sensibility is not defamation, if the person said to be defamed is not lowered in character or credit in the eyes of others. (Para 22) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Torts - For an actionable tort, there has to be a wrongful act, and damage or loss or inconvenience or annoyance caused to another, by reason of the wrongful act. Annoyance or inconvenience or loss alone does not give right to a legal action. The question of what constitutes nuisance is a question which the Court has to determine. The Court has first to ascertain what is the legal duty of which there has been breach. The right to an injunction depends on the legal right and this must be determined before any relief can be granted by the Court. (Para 15) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi | 24 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213

Transfer Guidelines/Policy of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh - Transfer Policy may not be enforceable in law, but when the Transfer Policy has been framed by the MP High Court for administration of the District Judiciary, every Judicial Officer will have a legitimate expectation that such a Policy should be given due weightage, when the cases of Judicial Officers for transfer are being considered. (Para 41) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu) - Entry 44 of Part B of the Fourth Schedule - Hank Yarn - When the Entry in question specifically provides for exemption to the goods described as "Hank Yarn" without any ambiguity or qualification, its import cannot be restricted by describing it as being available only for the hank form of one raw material like cotton nor could it be restricted with reference to its user industry - Entry in question is clear, direct and unambiguous. (Para 11 -12) Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling v. Aakavi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. | 12 Jan 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 191

Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 32 and 40 - The power of the Board to investigate and determine the nature and extent of Wakf is not purely an administrative function - The power to determine under Section 32(2)(n) is the source of power but the manner of exercising that power is contemplated under Section 40 of the 1995 Act. An inquiry is required to be conducted if a Board on the basis of information collected finds that the property in question is a wakf property - There cannot be any unilateral decision without recording any reason that how and why the property is included as a wakf property. The finding of the Wakf Board is final, subject to the right of appeal under sub -section (2). Thus, any decision of the Board is required to be as a reasoned order which could be tested in appeal before the Wakf Tribunal. (Para 145) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 32 and 40 - The Wakf Board has power to determine the nature of the property as wakf under Section 32(2)(n) but after complying with the procedure prescribed as contained in Section 40. Such procedure categorically prescribes an inquiry to be conducted. The conduct of inquiry pre -supposes compliance of the principles of natural justice so as to give opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. (Para 146) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Wakf Act, 1995 - Section 40(3) Proviso - If a trust or society is already registered but the Board finds it to be Wakf, the statute contemplates notice to the authority. It does not mean that such trust or society is not required to be heard. The hearing to Trust or Society would also be as per the principles of natural justice. (Para 147) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Wakf Act, 1995 - The Wakf Board is a statutory authority under the 1954 Act as well as under the 1995 Act. The Official Gazette had to carry any notification at the instance of the Wakf Board. The State Government is not bound by the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette at the instance of the Wakf Board only for the reason that it has been published in the Official Gazette. The publication of a notice in an Official Gazette has a presumption of knowledge to the general public as an advertisement published in a newspaper. Therefore, mere reason that the notification was published in the State Government gazette is not binding on the State Government. (Para 132) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Words and Phrases - "Legal malice" or "malice in law" - State is under the obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice — in fact or in law. "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of malice or spite on the part of the State. It would mean exercise of statutory power for "purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended". It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others. (Para 58) Ms. X v. Registrar General | 10 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150

Words and Phrases - Meaning of expressions "officer", "subordinate", "any", "officer subordinate" discussed. (Para 31 -33) NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty | 25 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Words and Phrases - Scope and meaning of the word "errata" discussed - "Errata" is a term of French origin which means a thing that should be corrected. It means a mistake in printing or writing - Errata is a correction of a mistake. Hence, only arithmetical and clerical mistakes could be corrected and the scope of the notification could not be enlarged by virtue of an errata notification, (Para 153 -154) State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Wakf Board | 7 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136

Words and Phrases - Void and Voidable - discussed. (Para 8, 9) Jayashree v. Director Collegiate Education | 22 Feb 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237


Next Story