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

Supreme Court Monthly Digest July 2022 (Citations 560 - 646)

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
4 Aug 2022 2:34 PM GMT
Supreme Court Monthly Digest July 2022 (Citations 560 - 646)
x

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Even if an aspect with regard to 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims may/can be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, it is always advisable and appropriate that in cases of debatable and disputable facts, good reasonably arguable case, the same should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal. (Para...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Even if an aspect with regard to 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims may/can be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, it is always advisable and appropriate that in cases of debatable and disputable facts, good reasonably arguable case, the same should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal. (Para 13) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11, 11(6A) - Though the Arbitral Tribunal may have jurisdiction and authority to decide the disputes including the question of jurisdiction and non­arbitrability, the same can also be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application if the facts are very clear and glaring and in view of the specific clauses in the agreement binding between the parties, whether the dispute is non­arbitrable and/or it falls within the excepted clause. Even at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, the Court may prima facie consider even the aspect with regard to 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims. (Para 13) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - It would not be open for the court in the proceedings under Section 34 or in the appeal under Section 37 to modify the award, the appropriate course to be adopted in such event is to set aside the award and remit the matter. (Para 40) National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - National Highways Act, 1956; Section 3G(5) - While examining the award within the parameters permissible under Section 34 of Page 39 of 73 Act, 1996 and while examining the determination of compensation as provided under Sections 26 and 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the concept of just compensation for the acquired land should be kept in view while taking note of the award considering the sufficiency of the reasons given in the award for the ultimate conclusion. (Para 24) National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 7 - Parties to the contract are free to agree on applicability of (1) proper law of contract, (2) proper law of arbitration agreement and (3) proper law of the conduct of arbitration. Parties to the contract also may agree for matters excluded from the purview of arbitration - Unless the effect of agreement results in performance of an unlawful act, an agreement, which is otherwise legal, cannot be held to be void and is binding between the parties. (Para 13.3) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 23(2A), 34 - Counter-claim of a party cannot be dismissed merely because the claims were not notified before invoking the arbitration. National Highway Authority of India v. Transstroy (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586

Arbitration and Conciliation Act; 1996; Section 11(6) - There cannot be two arbitration proceedings with respect to the same contract/transaction-in the present case, earlier the dispute was referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator passed an award on whatever the claims were made. Thereafter, a fresh arbitration proceeding was sought to be initiated with respect to some further claims, may be after final bill-The same is rightly refused (by the High Court) to be referred to arbitration in exercise of Section 11(6) of the Act. Tantia Constructions v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 624

Army Act, 1950 - Army Regulations - Regulation 349 - Pending the Court of Inquiry, an opportunity of hearing not required to be afforded before suspending Army officers - Under Regulation 349 also, there is no requirement of such a procedure to be followed. Col. Vineet Raman Sharda v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 606

Bail - Economic Offences - The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another - It is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. (Para 66) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Bail - The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails. (Para 72-73(a)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Carriage by Air Act, 1972; Rule 30 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 29(2) - Rule 30 expressly excludes the Limitation Act as provided in Section 29 - Rule 30 (2) does not enable applicability of exclusion of periods for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years. (Para 43) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Child Custody - The question 'what is the wish/desire of the child' is different and distinct from the question 'what would be in the best interest of the child'. Certainly, the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to 'what would be in the best interest of the child' is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to part their ways as parthian shot they may level extreme allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy to have the custody of the child - Unless very serious, proven conduct which should make one of them unworthy to claim for custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely looking into the question as to, 'what would be the best interest of the child concerned' - Welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration. (Para 8) Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Civil Cases - Pleadings - Relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. (Para 15-18) Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - One First Appeal filed by defendant against a common judgment disposing two suits - An application (CLMA) seeking permission to file a single appeal assailing the common judgment alongwith two separate decrees filed - The first appeal admitted by High Court - A decade later, the High Court without passing any order on the said CLMA, at the time of hearing of the appeal, accepted the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of single first appeal without entering into the merits of the case - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the approach adopted by High Court is not correct, because on dismissal of the CLMA, the appellant might have had the opportunity to rectify the defect by way of filing separate appeal under Section 96 CPC challenging the same judgment with separate decree - Matter remanded to the High Court to decide the CLMA before deciding the preliminary objection of maintainability of one appeal. Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity. (Para 10) Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 10 - The principle that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus shall be applicable only in a case where parties sought to be added as defendants are necessary and / or proper parties. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and / or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus. (Para 9) Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order II Rule 2 - Constructive Res Judicata - The party claiming and raising the plea of constructive res judicata/Order II Rule 2 of the Code must place on record in evidence the pleadings of the previous suit and establish the identity of the cause of actions, which cannot be established in the absence of record of judgment and decree which is pleaded to operate as estoppel. (Para 33) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order IX Rule 13 - On setting aside the ex­parte judgment and decree, though the defendants who had not filed the written statement, can be permitted to participate in the suit and cross­examine the witnesses. (Para 3.1) Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - If, by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment. It would also result in misjoinder of causes of action. (Para 8) Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XII Rule 6 - The power to pass judgment on admissions is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right - The said power should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke it. (Para 16-18) Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 567

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XV Rule 5 - As per these provisions, in a suit by a lessor for eviction of a lessee after the determination of lease and for recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant is under the obligation: (1) to deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on or before the first hearing of the suit; and (2) to regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week of its accrual throughout the pendency of the suit. The consequence of default in making either of these deposits is that the Court may strike off his defence. The expression 'first hearing' means the date for filing written statement or the date for hearing mentioned in the summons; and in case of multiple dates, the last of them. The expression 'monthly amount due' means the amount due every month, whether as rent or damages for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent after making no other deduction except taxes, if paid to the local authority on lessor's account. It is, however, expected that before making an order striking off defence, the Court would consider the representation of the defendant, if made within 10 days of the first hearing or within 10 days of the expiry of one week from the date of accrual of monthly amount. (Para 9.1) Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XV Rule 5 - it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that by merely denying the title of plaintiff or relationship of landlord- tenant/lessor-lessee, a defendant of the suit of the present nature could enjoy the property during the pendency of the suit without depositing the amount of rent/damages. (Para 14) Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 97 - The bona­fide purchaser of the suit property is not entitled objecting execution of the decree by the decree holder. (Para 15) Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 97-102 - Applications under Rule 97 and Rule 99 are subject to Rule 101 which provides for determination of questions relating to disputes as to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings or their representatives on an application made under Rule 97 or Rule 99. Effectively, the said Rule does away with the requirement of filing of fresh suit for adjudication of disputes. (Para 14, 16) Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 1 - 4 - While considering whether the suit/appeal has abated due to non­bringing the legal representatives of plaintiffs/defendants or not, the Court has to examine if the right to sue survives against the surviving respondents - Court has to consider the effect of abatement of the appeal against each of the respondents in case of multiple respondents. (Para 9- 9.2) Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - For res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality - Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit. The reason is that the first suit is not decided on merits - Conditions that must be satisfied to constitute a plea of res judicata laid down. (Para 30-31) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - To succeed and establish a prayer for res judicata, the party taking the said prayer must place on record a copy of the pleadings and the judgments passed, including the appellate judgment which has attained finality. (Para 32) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata - When the suit was dismissed for technical reasons, which decision is not an adjudication on merits of the dispute that would operate as res judicata on the merits of the matter. (Para 32) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer - In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. (Para 9) NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 CPC is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 24 - When two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions. (Para 10-11) NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 25 - Jurisdiction under Section 25 cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings- The plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending. (Para 4-5) Neilan International Co. Ltd. v. Powerica Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 566

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 96 - An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original court. Ordinarily, First appeal involves a re­hearing on law as well as on fact as invoked by an aggrieved person. The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and therein all questions of fact and law are open for consideration by re­appreciating the material and evidence. The first appellate court is required to address on all the issues and decide the appeal assigning valid reasons either in support or against by re­appraisal - It must record its findings dealing all the issues, considering oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. (Para 8) Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 138 - Anticipatory Bail - Adverse order against third party by High Court in an anticipatory bail proceedings - It is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequences for the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified. Kanchan Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 640

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Limb of Article 21 - A duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the benefit of suspect. Such a right cannot be taken away even during any unforeseen circumstances. (Para 34) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 170 - Scope and ambit. (Para 36) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - Issuing a warrant may be an exception in which case the Magistrate will have to give reasons. (Para 37) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 209 - Power of the Magistrate to remand a person into custody during or until the conclusion of the trial - Since the power is to be exercised by the Magistrate on a case-to-case basis, it is his wisdom in either remanding an accused or granting bail. (Para 38) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 226 - Before the Court proceeds to frame the charge against the accused, the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to give a fair idea to the Court as regards the case of the prosecution - Over a period of time, this provision has gone, in oblivion - It permits the prosecution to make the first impression regards a case, one which might be difficult to dispel. In not insisting upon its right under Section 226 of the CrPC, the prosecution would be doing itself a disfavour. (Para 20, 15) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227-228 - Cause of death of the deceased as assigned in the post mortem report being the "cardio respiratory failure" - Whether Trial Court could have discharged the accused from offence of murder - At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record - Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part II, IPC could have been decided by the trial court only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence, if any, comes on record. (Para 31) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - The prosecution case is necessarily limited by the charge. It forms the foundation of the trial which starts with it and the accused can justifiably concentrate on meeting the subject­ matter of the charge against him. He need not cross ­examine witnesses with regard to offences he is not charged with nor need he give any evidence in defence in respect of such charges - Where a higher charge is not framed for which there is evidence, the accused is entitled to assume that he is called upon to defend himself only with regard to the lesser offence for which he has been charged. It is not necessary then for him to meet evidence relating to the offences with which he has not been charged. He is merely to answer the charge as framed. The Code does not require him to meet all evidence led by prosecution. He has only to rebut evidence bearing on the charge. (Para 32) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - The purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial - Scope of Court's powers in respect of the framing of charges - Referred to Dipakbhai Jagdishchndra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 et al - The trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. (Para 21-27) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - There is an inbuilt element of presumption - Meaning of 'presumption'. (Para 28) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 309 - Bail - While it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. (Para 41) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 31 - Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has full discretion to order the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences. (Para 10-11) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 374 (2) - Already admitted appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed on the ground that the accused is absconding. (Para 8) Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 374 (2) - Patna HC dismissed an appeal filed against conviction on the ground that appellant accused was absconding - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: The anguish expressed by the Division Bench about the brazen action of the appellant of absconding and defeating the administration of justice can be well understood. However, that is no ground to dismiss an appeal against conviction, which was already admitted for final hearing, for non-prosecution without adverting to merits -The impugned judgment set aside and the appeal remanded to the High Court for consideration on merits. Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. (Para 8) Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 386 (e) - Power to make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper would be available, of course in appropriate cases falling under any of the four categories of appeals mentioned under clauses (a) to (d) - The twin provisos under clause (d) carry restrictions in the matter of exercise of power under clause (e), with respect to enhancement of sentence and infliction of punishment - The power thereunder can be exercised only in rare cases. (Para 18) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 386 (e) - Rape convict kept in prison beyond the period of sentence - When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment - Compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act/omission committed by its officers in the course of employment. Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - "Presumption of innocence" and "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" may not be available to the appellant who has suffered a conviction - The power exercisable under Section 389 is different from that of the one either under Section 437 or under Section 439 of the Code, pending trial- Delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred under Section 436A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail. (Para 42-44) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397 - The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well­ founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case - While considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. (Para 8-9) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41 - Power of Arrest - Police officers have a duty to apply their mind to the case before them and ensure that the condition(s) in Section 41 are met before they conduct an arrest - Supreme Court reiterates the guidelines for arrest laid down in the 2014 Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. [Para 27, 28] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41 - Scope - Even for a cognizable offense, an arrest is not mandatory as can be seen from the mandate of this provision. (Para 21 -23) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) - Notwithstanding the existence of a reason to believe qua a police officer, the satisfaction for the need to arrest shall also be present - Both the elements of 'reason to believe' and 'satisfaction qua an arrest' are mandated and accordingly are to be recorded by the police officer. (Para 27) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 428 - Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence or imprisonment - it cannot be lost sight that when reference is made in a set off for adjustment of periods, the reference is to proceedings within the country - the criminal law of the land does not have any extra-territorial application - thus, what happens in another country for some other trial, some other detention, in our view, would not be relevant for the purposes of the proceedings in the country - accused cannot claim a double benefit under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C - i.e., the same period being counted as part of the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the former offence and also being set off against the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the latter offence as well. [Para 50, 52] Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - Section 436A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigor as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. (Para 64) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - The word 'shall' clearly denotes the mandatory compliance of this provision - There is not even a need for a bail application in a case of this nature particularly when the reasons for delay are not attributable against the accused - While taking a decision the public prosecutor is to be heard, and the court, if it is of the view that there is a need for continued detention longer than one-half of the said period, has to do so. However, such an exercise of power is expected to be undertaken sparingly being an exception to the general rule. (Para 47) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - The word 'trial' will have to be given an expanded meaning particularly when an appeal or admission is pending - In a case where an appeal is pending for a longer time, to bring it under Section 436A, the period of incarceration in all forms will have to be reckoned, and so also for the revision. (Para 46) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - Scope - The jurisdictional Magistrate who otherwise has the jurisdiction to try a criminal case which provides for a maximum punishment of either life or death sentence, has got ample jurisdiction to consider the release on bail. (Para 53-55, 58) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - The first proviso to Section 437 facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm - This has to be applied while considering release on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be. (Para 58) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail Jurisdiction - cannot implead third party to proceedings - especially those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration - application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the cause of the concerned applicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with offence already registered against him and apprehending his arrest in connection with such a case for extraneous reasons or otherwise - in such proceedings, the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the Court - no attempt should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party much less beyond the scope of the complaint/FIR in question - even if the application is entertained by the High Court, the High Court should exercise circumspection in dealing with the application only in respect of matters which are relevant to decide the application and not to over-state facts or other matters unrelated to the applicant before the Court. Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Appeal against High Court order that granted anticipatory bail on the ground that no recovery was effected from the accused and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused - Allowed -The respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances - Illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled :- a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record. b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim. c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified. g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case. (Para 30-34) Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Principles governing grant of bail - There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (Para 19-29) Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439(2) - Bail conditions -The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed. [Para 29] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 440 - It is a mandatory duty of the court to take into consideration the circumstances of the case and satisfy itself that it is not excessive. Imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of the release. In this connection, we would only say that Section 436, 437, 438 and 439 of the Code are to be read in consonance. Reasonableness of the bond and surety is something which the court has to keep in mind whenever the same is insisted upon, and therefore while exercising the power under Section 88 of the Code also the said factum has to be kept in mind. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 45 - Expert Witness - A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court. (Para 29) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature - In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society. (Para 38) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - An FIR under Section 306 IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else - Section 306 IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. (Para 50) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - No mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Para 7) State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scope and powers of High Court discussed - The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. In what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal complaint or criminal proceedings upon compromise can be exercised, would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 26-37) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The Criminal Proceeding cannot be quashed only because there is a settlement (including monetary settlement) between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. (Para 50) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The High Court has the inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order which was without jurisdiction or a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by the judgment and/or order. (Para 22) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 87-88 - Courts will have to adopt the procedure in issuing summons first, thereafter a bailable warrant, and then a non-bailable warrant may be issued- Issuing non-bailable warrants as a matter of course without due application of mind against the tenor of the provision. (Para 31-32) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 35 - The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can be said to be at par with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in so far as the powers to be exercised under the Cr.PC are concerned - The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in addition, may have administrative powers. (Para 10-10.1) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 227-228, 239-240, 245 - The case may be a sessions case, a warrant case, or a summons case, the point is that a prima facie case must be made out before a charge can be framed. (Para 19) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 41, 41A - The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail - The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 - Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action - State Governments and the Union Territories to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code. (Para 73 (b-d)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 437, 439 - Bail - Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application. (Para 73 (k)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 439, 161 - Bail - Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 440, 436A - Undertrials - The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release- While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind - An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court. (Para 73 (h-j)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 - There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. (Para 73 (e)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Constitution of India - Writ of Habeas Corpus in Cases of Child's Custody - in a petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus in a matter relating to a claim for custody of a child, the principal issue which should be taken into consideration is as to whether from the facts of the case, it can be stated that the custody of the child is illegal - whether the welfare of the child requires that his present custody should be changed and the child be handed over to the care and custody of any other person - whenever a question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of the minor child, the matter is to be decided not on consideration of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the child - welfare is an all-encompassing word - It includes material welfare - while material considerations have their place they are secondary matters - more important are the stability and the security, the loving and understanding care and guidance, the warm and compassionate relationships that are essential for the full development of the child's own character, personality and talents - the employment of the writ of Habeas Corpus in child custody cases is not pursuant to, but independent of any statute - the jurisdiction exercised by the court rests in such cases on its inherent equitable powers and exerts the force of the State, as parens patriae, for the protection of its minor ward, and the very nature and scope of the inquiry and the result sought to be accomplished call for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a court of equity - The primary object of a Habeas Corpus petition, as applied to minor children, is to determine in whose custody the best interests of the child will probably be advanced. [Para 75, 80, 81, 86, 88, 89] Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeals - (i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances. (ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. (iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. (iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it. (v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. (Para 23) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Scope of interference in criminal appeals by special leave discussed. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139A - Transfer - The likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer - Decision to transfer or not, to the Supreme Court or to one High Court, has to be taken with reference to the given set of facts and circumstances - No hard and fast rule or any structured formula is provided nor appears desirable. (Para 16) Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139A - Transfer Petitions seeking transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court - Dismissed - It appears just and proper that the petitions in the jurisdictional High Courts are decided with reference to their own factual background and the law applicable. Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14 - does not prohibit the classification of persons or class of persons provided it is not arbitrary - classification has to be reasonable - classification is permissible provided it is founded on an intelligible differentia - classification must have a rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by it - whether Haj Committees under the 2002 Act, can be treated as a separate class - on the ground both HGOs and the Haj Committee render service to the same class of persons, the classification made by treating the Haj Committee as a separate class, cannot be questioned - different classes of service providers rendering the same service to the same class of service recipients does not amount to discrimination - Haj Committee is a statutory committee which is entrusted with various functions for the welfare of Haj pilgrims - profit motive is completely absent in the case of the Haj Committee - Haj Committee constitutes a class in itself when it comes to rendering service to Haj pilgrims - it is a separate class as distinguished from HGOs. [Para 56, 60] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 141 - Precedent - A subsequent decision, in which the earlier decisions were considered and distinguished by this Court, the subsequent decision of this Court was binding upon the High Court - Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7.3) Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Court can grant appropriate relief when there is some manifest illegality or where some palpable injustice is shown to have resulted. Such a power can be traced either to Article 142 of the Constitution of India or powers inherent as guardian of the Constitution. (Para 19) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech and expression - Mohammed Zubair Case- Blanket bail orders to prevent the petitoner from tweeting cannot be imposed, merely because the case is based on tweets- Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech. According to the petitioner, he is a journalist who is the co-founder of a fact checking website and he uses Twitter as a medium of communication to dispel false news and misinformation in this age of morphed images, clickbait, and tailored videos. Passing an order restricting him from posting on social media would amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice his profession. [Para 30] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 19(1)(d), 21 - When a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(1) (d) but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 17) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Personal Liberty and power of arrest - Arrest is not meant to be and must not be used as a punitive tool because it results in one of the gravest possible consequences emanating from criminal law: the loss of personal liberty. Individuals must not be punished solely on the basis of allegations, and without a fair trial. When the power to arrest is exercised without application of mind and without due regard to the law, it amounts to an abuse of power. The criminal law and its processes ought not to be instrumentalized as a tool of harassment. Section 41 of the CrPC as well as the safeguards in criminal law exist in recognition of the reality that any criminal proceeding almost inevitably involves the might of the state, with unlimited resources at its disposal, against a lone individual. [Para 27, 28] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Right of Privacy - Right to be Forgotten - Right of Eraser - SC Registry directed to examine the issue and to work out how the name of both the petitioner and respondent No.1 along with address details can be masked so that they do not appear visible for any search engine. X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 618

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21 - Right to a fair and speedy trial is a facet of Article 21. (Para 40 -41) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Examining Constitutional validity of legislation - There is a presumption about the constitutionality of the law made by the Parliament/State Legislature - High Court should not deal with the question of validity in a cryptic/casual manner. (Para 14-16) State of Karnataka v. B.R. Muralidhar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Habeas Corpus - Child Custody - Parens patriae jurisdiction - Even while considering Habeas Corpus writ petition qua a minor, in a given case, the High Courts may direct for return of the child or decline to change the custody of the child taking into account the attending facts and circumstances. (Para 9) Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 restated. (Para 33) Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1973; Order IX Rule 13 - High Court not to entertain a revision application challenging the ex­parte judgment and decree as there was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available. (Para 6-7) Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - Tests of repugnancy - (1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by State Legislature occupy the same fieldRepugnancy may arise between two enactments even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field. (Para 32-33) All Kerala Distributors Association v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 639

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - An order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. [Para 45] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - The accused "does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency". [Para 51, 52] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, yet it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights - mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation [Para 44, 47, 50] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 & 226 - When CBI enquiry can be directed - CBI inquiry can be directed only in rare and exceptional cases -such prayer should not be granted on mere asking - though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or re- investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment - the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties - one factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies". [Para 44, 47, 50] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 142 - Clubbing of FIRs - FIRs lodged against accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Section 420 IPC etc) and other State enactments in various states - Directs clubbing of all the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible - Multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Administrative Law - Judicial Review - The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion - Scope discussed. (Para 28-37) Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 21 and 300-A - Right to property had ceased to be a fundamental right. True that it is a human right as also constitutional right. Hence, compulsory acquisition by scrupulous adherence to the procedures authorised by law would not violate Article 300-A. (Para 26) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644

Constitution of India; 1950 Article 21 - A woman's right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution. She has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity. [Para 19] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Constitution of Special Courts - The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously. (Para 73 (g)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance Claims - The delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation could be one of the several factors for holding an insurer guilty of deficiency in service. But it cannot be the only factor. (Para 24) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashikala J. Ayachi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - A person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court - The Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court. In Re Perry Kansagra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Vijay Mallya sentenced to 4 months imprisonment and Rs 2000 fine for contempt of court for disobedience of court orders- It is, well settled that apart from punishing the contemnor for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. The approach may require the court to pass directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by declaring said transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to see that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him- In a given case, to meet the ends of justice, the concept of purging of the contempt would call for complete disgorging of all the benefits secured as a result of actions which are found by the court to be contumacious. (Para 13) State Bank of India v. Dr. Vijay Mallya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575

Criminal Investigation and Trial - In case of grave and serious non compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society. (Para 39) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Criminal Trial - Post Mortem Report - The post mortem report of the doctor is his previous statement based on his examination of the dead body. It is not substantive evidence. The doctor's statement in court is alone the substantive evidence - It can be used only to corroborate his statement under Section 157, or to refresh his memory under Section 159, or to contradict his statement in the witness box under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 29) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Criminal Trial - Presumption of Innocence - Onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt before the Court -The agency to satisfy the Court that the arrest made was warranted and enlargement on bail is to be denied - Presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21, shall inure to the benefit of the accused. (Para 13-18) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Criminal Trial - Test Identification Parade - When no TIP was conducted the first version of the complainant reflected in the FIR would play an important role - It is required to be considered whether in the FIR and/or in the first version the eye­ witness either disclosed the identity and/or description of the accused on the basis of which he can recollect at the time of deposition and identify the accused for the first time in the Court Room - It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court. (Para 6.2 - 6.7) Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582

Criminal Trial - The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission - Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Delegated Legislation - Delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making. A rule cannot rise above the source of power. (Para 12) Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614

Disability Pension - Army - the question of entitlement of soldiers to disability pension cannot be determined on the basis of medical examination conducted 20 years after his discharge. (Para 15) Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Electricity - A basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived - Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. Dilip v. Satish, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570

Electricity - Appeal against High Court judgment which quashed FIR lodged by landlord against tenant alleging that he forged signature in a No objection certificate submitted before Electricity Board - Allowed - Completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 IPC- It cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Dilip v. Satish, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 14(b) - the Rule is only attracted when a disease leads to an individual's discharge or death - such disease is ordinarily to be deemed to have arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for military service, but not always - in any case, the presumption under Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules is rebuttable - if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service, the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. [Para 20] Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 14(c) - If a disease were accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of military service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service - reason for disability or ailment - reliance would necessarily have to be placed on expert medical opinion based on an in depth study of the cause and nature of an ailment/disability including the symptoms thereof, the conditions of service to which the soldier was exposed and the connection between the cause/aggravation of the ailment/disability and the conditions and/or requirements of service. [Para 23, 25] Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619

Evidence Act, 1872 - Ocular Evidence - Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case - In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. (Para 27-28) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872 - When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence. (Para 13) Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act - (1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave informations and (4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible - Two conditions for application – (1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. (Para 42) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it. (Para 45-46) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - The conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Act, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Para 50) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8, 27 - Even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct would be relevant under Section 8 of the Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27. (Para 48) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Extradition Act, 1962 - Supreme Court holds that Union Government is bound to release Bombay Blast case convict Abu Salem by granting remission of him after he completes 25 years of sentence from the date on which he was detained for extradition to India (12.10.2005) as per the sovereign assurance given to Portugal. Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Extradition Act, 1962 - The separation of Judicial and Executive powers and the scheme of the Indian Constitution cannot bind the Indian courts in proceedings under the Extradition Act. Thus, the courts must proceed in accordance with law and impose the sentence as the law of the land requires, while simultaneously the Executive is bound to comply with its international obligations under the Extradition Act as also on the principle of comity of courts, which forms the basis of the extradition. [Para 39] Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Finance Act, 1992 - Service Tax - Mega Exemption Notification no.25 of 2012–ST - Clause 5A - Services by a specified organisation in respect of a religious pilgrimage facilitated by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India, under bilateral arrangement - specified organisations - Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited, a Government of Uttarakhand Undertaking; or 'Committee' or 'State Committee' as defined in section 2 of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 - Haj Group Organizers not specified organisation - not eligible for exemption [Para 46, 47, 50, 52] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Finance Act, 1992 - Service Tax - Mega Exemption Notification no.25 of 2012–ST - Clause 5(b) - Services by a person by way of conduct of any religious ceremony - It only exempts service provided by way of conduct of any religious ceremony - The service rendered by HGOs to Haj pilgrims is to facilitate them to reach at the destination to perform rituals/religious ceremonies. No religious ceremony is performed or conducted by the HGOs. [Para 51, 52] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 - "Forest" or "any forest land" - (1) Statutorily recognized forests such as reserved or protected forests to which clause (i) of Section 2 is applicable; (2) The forests as understood in accordance with dictionary sense and (3) Any area recorded as a forest in Government records. (Para 38) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 - The State Government or the competent authority cannot permit use for non-forest activities without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government - The power given to the Central Government under Section 2 must be exercised by adopting scientific and consistent yardsticks for applying the principles of sustainable development. (Para 36-37) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2 (ii-iv) - The specific land in respect of which a special order under section 4 of PLPA has been issued will have all the trappings of a forest governed by clauses (ii) to (iv) of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act - Whether the special orders under Section 4 continue to be in force or not, the lands covered by the said notifications will continue to fall in the category of forests covered by Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act. (Para 47 - 60) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(i) - State Government cannot exercise the power under Section 27 of the 1927 Forest Act of declaring that a particular land will cease to be a reserved forest unless there is prior approval from the Central Government. (Para 43) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(ii-iv) - Forest - Dictionary meaning - A large or extensive tract of land having a dense growth of trees, thickets, mangroves etc. A small isolated plot of land will not come within the ambit merely because there are some trees or thickets thereon, as opposed to extensive tract of land covered with dense growth of trees and underbrush or plants resembling a forest in profusion or lushness. (Para 40) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2(ii-iv) - Government Records - A Government record is a record maintained by its various departments - Only the entries made after following due process can be a part of any Government record. Government records will include land or revenue records and the record of the forest department. (Para 41) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Forest Act, 1927 - Concept of forest discussed. (Para 26-30) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Goods and Services Tax - Private Haj tour operators not entitled to claim GST exemption available for conducting religious ceremony - Haj Group Organizers are not performing any religious ceremony - HGOs can't claim parity with Haj Committee, which is a specified organization eligible for GST exemption for services in relation to pilgrimage. All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Goods and Services Tax - Supreme Court allows 2 months additional window from September 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022 to claim transitional credit - Directions issued. Union of India v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 628

Haj Pilgrims - Bifurcation of services rendered by the HGOs - cannot be bifurcated into two parts; services provided within taxable territory and those provided outside the taxable territory for the purpose of tax exemption - HGOs receive charges from Haj pilgrims for the entire package; it is not the case of the HGOs that they charge separately for different services forming a part of the comprehensive package - only a part of the package cannot be picked up for invoking exemption - for the purposes of levy of service tax, the service rendered cannot be dissected like this. [Para 54] All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956; Section 12 - Adoption - While the main object of adoption in the past has been to secure the performance of one's funeral rights and to preserve the continuance of one's lineage, in recent times, the modern adoption theory aims to restore family life to a child deprived of his or her biological family - When child takes on to be a kosher member of the adoptive family it is only logical that he takes the surname of the adoptive family - A name is important as a child derives his identity from it and a difference in name from his family would act as a constant reminder of the factum of adoption and expose the child to unnecessary questions hindering a smooth, natural relationship between him and his parent. (Para 11-14) Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Section 9(3) - Natural Guardian - Mother has an equal position as the father. (Para 9) Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 10B(8) - For claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. (Para 14) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Appeal against the judgment of High Court of Gujarat whereby the warrant of authorization issued by Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was quashed - Allowed - The question as to whether such reasons are adequate or not is not a matter for the Court to review in a writ petition. The sufficiency of the grounds which induced the competent authority to act is not a justiciable issue. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 132 - Sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure. The belief recorded alone is justiciable but only while keeping in view the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness. Such reasonableness is not a power to act as an appellate authority over the reasons to believe recorded. (Para 32) Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka); Section 29(4) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 18(1) - Person Interested - A subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a "person interested" for the purpose of determination of compensation - The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the acquisition under the KIAD Act, 1966 are both distinct and the provisions under both the Acts are distinguishable. (Para 7.3-7.4) Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Intended to consolidate and amend the laws with a view to reorganize Corporate Debtors and resolve insolvency in a time bound manner for maximization of the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor - The statute deals with and/or tackles insolvency and bankruptcy. It is certainly not the object of the IBC to penalize solvent companies, temporarily defaulting in repayment of its financial debts, by initiation of CIRP. (Para 80 - 81) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - NCLT admitted an application for initiating CIRP filed by operational creditor - NCLAT set it aside - Supreme Court dismissed and held: NCLT committed a grave error of law by admitting the application of the Operational Creditor, even though there was a pre-existing dispute as noted by it. SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Legislature has consciously differentiated between Financial Creditors and Operational Creditors, as there is an innate difference between Financial Creditors, in the business of investment and financing, and Operational Creditors in the business of supply of goods and services. Financial credit is usually secured and of much longer duration. Such credits, which are often long term credits, on which the operation of the Corporate Debtor depends, cannot be equated to operational debts which are usually unsecured, of a shorter duration and of lesser amount. The financial strength and nature of business of a Financial Creditor cannot be compared with that of an Operational Creditor, engaged in supply of goods and services. The impact of the non-payment of admitted dues could be far more serious on an Operational Creditor than on a financial creditor. (Para 78) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7(5)(a) - Ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit an application under Section 7 of the IBC of the IBC and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition - It has to consider the grounds made out by the Corporate Debtor against admission, on its own merits. (Para 87 - 88) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7(5)(a) - The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has been conferred the discretion to admit the application of the Financial Creditor. If facts and circumstances so warrant, the Adjudicating Authority can keep the admission in abeyance or even reject the application. Of course, in case of rejection of an application, the Financial Creditor is not denuded of the right to apply afresh for initiation of CIRP, if its dues continue to remain unpaid - The Adjudicating Authority might examine the expedience of initiation of CIRP, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including the overall financial health and viability of the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority may in its discretion not admit the application of a Financial Creditor. (Para 77 - 79) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 7-9 - Noticeable differences in the IBC between the procedure of initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor and by an operational creditor -The NCLT is not a debt collection forum. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 8-9 - If the claim is undisputed and the operational debt remains unpaid, CIRP must commence- IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an Operational Creditor. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 8-9 - if the debt is disputed, the application of the Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP must be dismissed - CIRP should be initiated to penalize solvent companies for non-payment of disputed dues claimed by an operational creditor. (Para 31-32) SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 9 - Section 9(5)(a) mandatory - An application of an Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9(2) of the IBC is mandatorily required to be admitted if the application is complete in all respects and in compliance of the 28 requisites of the IBC and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, if notices for payment or the invoice has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor by the Operational Creditor and no notice of dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor. The IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an operational creditor. (Para 76) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Interpretation of Statutes - All interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act - This is applicable while interpreting any provision in any statute especially when the power under that provision is conferred to pass orders that may be just or proper. (Para 18) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Interpretation of Statutes - Environment and Forest Laws - The approach of the court in interpreting the laws relating to forests and the environment discussed (Para 25) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Interpretation of Statutes - First and foremost principle of interpretation of a statute is the rule of literal interpretation - Purposive interpretation can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or if construed literally, the provision would nullify the object of the statute or otherwise lead to an absurd result. (Para 65 - 69) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Interpretation of Statutes - Municipal laws giving effect to International Conventions - Courts of law must endeavor to maintain a uniformity of interpretation with courts of other jurisdictions while interpreting international treaties and conventions. (Para 29) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Interpretation of Statutes - Taxation Laws - In a taxing statute the provisions are to be read as they are and they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee - An assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. (Para 8, 11) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583

Interpretation of Statutes - While dealing with a welfare legislation, a purposive interpretation giving the benefit to the needy person being the intendment is the role required to be played by the court. (Para 57) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Judgments - Supreme Court advises High Courts to pronounce judgments without delay after concluding arguments -t is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved-Long delay in delivery of the judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parties in a case. (Para 6.2) State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Judicial Infrastructure - Supreme Court directs the Law Secretaries of all State Governments to file affidavits relating to budget allocation and utilization. Imtiaz Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 636

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Guidelines with respect to preliminary evaluation - appropriate and specific guidelines in this regard are required to be put in place - it open for the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015. [Para 87] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Proviso to Section 15 read as mandatory condition - for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts - where the Board is not comprising of a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the expression "may" in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and the Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts - however, in case the Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor. [Para 76] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Preliminary assessment on four aspects - mental capacity to commit the offence; physical capacity to commit the offence; ability to understand the consequences of the offence; and circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed. [Para 62] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - preliminary assessment requires holistic evaluation. [Para 65, 66] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Ability to understand the consequences of the offence - The language used in section 15 is "the ability to understand the consequences of the offence" - the expression used is in plurality i.e., "consequences" of the offence and, therefore, would not just be confined to the immediate consequence of the offence but impact/consequences for other people connected with the victim and the child and other far-reaching consequences in the future - This evaluation of 'mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences' of the child in conflict with law can, in no way, be relegated to the status of a perfunctory and a routine task. [Para 68, 69, 70, 71, 75] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Mental Capacity to commit offence and ability to understand the consequences of offence are different -The Board and the Children's Court apparently were of the view that the mental capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence were one and the same, that is to say that if the child had the mental capacity to commit the offence, then he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequences of the offence. This, in our considered opinion, is a grave error committed by them. [Para 67] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which are basically for the purpose of collection of stamp duty, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act - The market value of the land depends upon the location of the land; area of the land; whether the land is in a developed area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land and number of other advantageous and disadvantageous factors are required to be considered - There cannot be a uniform market value of the land for the purpose of determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. (Para 9-12) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Legal Maxims - Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not the principle applicable in India. (Para 6) Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 only bars the remedy, but when the right itself is extinguished, provisions of the Limitation Act have no application. (Para 15.2) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 29(2) - Express empowerment is to be gathered from the provisions of the statute - Even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. (Para 48) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Effect of 2021 amendment - Parliamentary intent to cover unmarried woman too-After 2021 amendment, the word "married woman" has been substituted with "any woman" and "husband" with "partner"-The Parliamentary intent, therefore, is clearly not to confine the beneficial provisions of the MTP Act only to a situation involving a matrimonial relationship. [Para 16 & 18] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Gap in the law exists between MTP Act and MTP Rules -Evidently, there is a gap in the law : while Section 3 travels beyond conventional relationships based on marriage, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules does not envisage a situation involving unmarried women, but recognizes other categories of women such as divorcees, widows, minors, disabled and mentally ill women and survivors of sexual assault or rape. [Para 18] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Supreme Court passes ad-interim order allowing unmarried woman to terminate pregnancy of 24-week term arising out of a consensual relationship - Prima facie observes the case is covered under Section 3(2)(b). X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - There is no basis to deny unmarried women the right to medically terminate the pregnancy, when the same choice is available to other categories of women -Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom-The distinction between a married and unmarried woman does not bear a nexus to the basic purpose and object which is sought to be achieved by Parliament which is conveyed specifically by the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 3 of the Act. [Para 18, 20, 21] X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621

Motor Accident Claims - The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the drive. (Para 10) Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646

Motor Accidents Compensation - Supreme Court grants relief to an advocate who had suffered 100% permanent disability due to an accident by enhancing the compensation awarded by the High Court from Rs 23,20,000/- to Rs 51,62,000/-. Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Motor Accidents Claims Compensation - Mutliplier Method - Multiplier method has been recognized as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided by looking at the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other realistic needs - Not only for determination of future loss of earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method should be followed. (Para 14) Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569

Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976; Section 4(7), 4(8), 15 - Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985; Section 8A - Constitutional validity upheld -There is nothing wrong in State Legislature making it compulsory to pay outstanding welfare fund contribution first before accepting the vehicle tax which had become due and payable - These provisions are in no way in conflict with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The real intent and purpose behind these provisions is to restate the mandate stated in the 1988 Act that the vehicle cannot be used on road without a valid permit and payment of vehicle tax up to date. (Para 40) All Kerala Distributors Association v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 639

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - The expression "reasonable grounds" used in Section 37(1)(b) under NDPS Act would mean credible, plausible grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. (Para 14) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Bail considerations - The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 17-18) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Bail - The admissions made by the accused while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside - Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 16) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - At the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail. (Para 15) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - NCB's appeal against Delhi HC order granting bail to accused - Allowed - Even dehors the confessional statements, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the accused - The observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage - Set aside Bail order. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 27A, 37 - When applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable in this case and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply. (Para 16.4) State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 27A, 37 - Appeal against Calcutta High Court order granted bail to a person accused under Sections 21(b)/29/27A of NDPS Act - Dismissed - No reason to consider interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions. State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Section 4 - NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011; Rule 3 - In view of the proviso to Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act 2010 which states that the number of expert members hearing the appeal or application shall be equal to the number of judicial members, mandating that there shall be at least one expert member on the Bench. Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614

NEET Admissions - Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the respondent to conduct admissions through institutional preference. The decision of whether or not to provide institutional preference solely lies with the respondent-authority since it falls within the realm of policy. (Para 9) Hemant Kumar Verma v. Employee State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 641

NEET In-Service Quota - Junior Resident Doctors serving in Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) run hospitals as part of their bond period cannot claim 50% in-service quota for Post Graduate courses at par with Insurance Medical Officers-There is a clear distinction in law between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors. The in-service quota is, therefore, justifiably made available to the latter category. The petitioners cannot claim parity with regularly recruited insurance medical officers in seeking the benefit of the in-service quota. (Para 10) Hemant Kumar Verma v. Employee State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 641

Orders - Conditional Order - CAT while setting aside disciplinary proceedings directed the disciplinary authority to complete the fresh proceedings within two months - The fresh proceedings was not completed within this stipulated time and an order was passed by the authority later - CAT rejected employee's challenge against this order - Allowing writ petition filed by employee, the High Court held that Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction or authority to complete the proceedings beyond the period prescribed by the Tribunal - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: While treating the proceedings as having abated and as nullity, the High Court has ignored the fundamental principles that fixing of such time period was only a matter of procedure with an expectation of conclusion of the proceedings in an expeditious manner. This period of two months had not acquired any such mandatory statutory character so as to nullify the entire of the disciplinary proceedings with its expiry. Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Orders - Conditional Order - When a conditional order is passed by the Court/Tribunal to do a particular act or thing within a particular period but the order does not provide anything as to the consequence of default, the Court/Tribunal fixing the time for doing a particular thing obviously retains the power to enlarge such time. As a corollary, even the Appellate Court/Tribunal or any higher forum would also be having the power to enlarge such time, if so required. In any case, it cannot be said that the proceedings would come to an end immediately after the expiry of the time fixed. (Para 9.2) Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Patna High Court Rules - Rule 8 of Chapter XII - Appeal against conviction shall be heard for admission unless the accused has surrendered to the order of the Court below convicting him to a sentence of imprisonment except in a case where the appellant has been released on bail by the trial court after convicting him - This Rule applies to the pre-admission stage, not applicable after admission. (Para 7) Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - As the explanation to Section 121A of the IPC discloses, for an offence of conspiracy, it would not be necessary that any act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance thereof. Thus, even though no untoward incident had actually of the IPC, the matter would still come within the four corners of Section 121A of the IPC. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - Conspiracy to wage war against India - The dictionary meaning of the expression "overawe" is to subdue or inhibit with a sense of awe. The expression "overawe" would thus imply creation of apprehension or situation of alarm and as rightly held by the Division Bench (in the case of Mir Hasan Khan v. State (or Ramanand v. State), it would not be necessary that the danger should be one of assassination of or of bodily injury to the members of the machinery or apparatus of the Government but the danger might as well be to public property or to the safety of members of the general public. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of four persons for causing the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru in December, 2005. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 221 - "charge" not defined under Cr.P.C. - a false "charge" in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning - would include a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion - the expression "falsely charges" in this section, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial - "to falsely charge" must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion - the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial - the false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings - in other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made - the statement in order to constitute the "charges" should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. [Para 91, 94] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code 1860; Section 221 - Essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence; the complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person, this complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. [Para 90] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code 1860; Section 376(2)(n) - Offence of committing repeated rape on same woman - The complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship - Now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC - Observations while granting anticipatory bail to accused. Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 304 Part II - Conviction of appellants modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II - Considerations relevant for determining a culpable homicide amounting to murder and distinguishing it from the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 17) Ajmal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Abetment to commit suicide - Even an indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. (Para 16) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961; Regulation 173 - Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982; Rule 12 - Unless the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the entitlement to disability pension does not arise - There has to be a reasonable causal connection between the injuries resulting in disability and the military service. (Para 8-10) Union of India v. Ex Naik Ram Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 611

Pleadings - Decree or direction beyond what was sought cannot be granted - Limits of a court to grant reliefs beyond the prayer and pleadings of the parties discussed. (Para 36) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Practice & Procedure - Party having the right of consideration of appeal does not have any corresponding right to insist for consideration of the appeal by a forum which is no longer in existence. Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi v. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Practice and Procedure - Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. (Para 14-17) Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 630

Precedents - A judgment is a precedent for the question of law that is raised and decided. The language used in a judgment cannot be read like a statute. In any case, words and phrases in the judgment cannot be construed in a truncated manner out of context. (Para 84) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ECIR vis-a-vis FIR - there is no need to formally register ECIR - ECIR is internal document - there is not requirement in law to furnish copy of ECIR to accused - non-recording of ECIR does not prevent the authorities from proceeding with inquiry/investigation for attachment - it is sufficient if at the time of arrest the person is informed the grounds on which the arrest is being made; sufficient compliance of A 22(1) of the Constitution; the Court before whom the accused is produced can call ED officers for relevant records. [Para 176-179] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ED Manual - is internal document and in the nature of administrative orders - common public may not be entitled to access such confidential administrative instructions for internal guidance of ED - there is no investigation but inquiry akin to civil action of attachment - since the inquiry ends in identifying the offender and then they are prosecuted, Authorities can considered outlining some crucial procedures and explore the feasibility of placing document on official website of ED. [Para 180-181] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Schedule of 2002 Act - classification or grouping of offences for treating the same as relevant for constituting offence of money- laundering is a matter of legislative policy. [Para 175-175A] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of powers of Enforcement Directorate for arrest, search and seizure, attachment - Court upholds the constitutionality of reverse burden of proof (Section 24) and twin conditions of bail (Section 45). Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 17 - Searches and Seizures - 2002 Act is a self contained code - inbuilt safeguards present - only Director and officers not below the rank of Deputy Director can authorise officers to carry out search and seizure - provision to record reasons shows it requires application of mind - officer conducting search is to forward a copy of the reasons recorded and materials in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope - officer seizing property obligated to submit application before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days for retention of record - officers carrying out search and seizure made accountable; can be punished under Section 62 - process of searches and seizure is not only for inquiry into the process of money-laundering, but also prevention - for strengthening mechanism Parliament has rightfully dropped the condition that no search shall be conducted unless there is a police report or a private complaint in relation to the scheduled offence. [Para 77-86] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 18 - Search of persons - officers to adhere to identical inbuilt safeguards as in exercise of power under Section 17 - search of person is a fair and reasonable procedure (search and seizure) - search to be carried out in presence of two witnesses - officers to prepare a list of record of seized property - search of a female person can be done only by a female - upon seizing property concerned office to submit application before Adjudicating Authority - opportunity to be given to concerned person to defend their property. [Para 87] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - Arrest - inbuilt stringent safeguards - power to arrest on high-ranking officers - provision to record reason regarding involvement in money-laundering - grounds of arrest to be informed to the person at the time of making arrest - copy of order along with material to be sent to Adjudicating Authority - arrested person is required to be procedure in Special Court within 24 hours of arrest. [Para 88-90] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 24 - Burden of Proof - application not limited to proceedings before Special Court - to apply to proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority regarding confirmation of provisional attachment order and order of confiscation vesting the attached property in the Central Government - would also apply to proceedings before Special Court upon presentation of complaint by officer under Section 44(1)(b) - before the Adjudicating Authority it is not necessary to follow proof beyond reasonable doubt, but would apply before the Special Court - on establishing that there exists proceeds of crime and the person in involved/linked in any process or activity connected with such proceeds, a legal presumption would arise that the proceeds of crime are involved in money -laundering - the onus merely shifts on the person facing charges to rebut the legal presumption - the presumption under Section 24(b) is not a mandatory legal presumption; but presumption under Section 24(a) is. [Para 91-103] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - offence of "money laundering" - widely worded; meant not only to investigate offence but also regulate it - involved in any process or activity with the proceeds of crime - including concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting/claiming tainted money to be untainted - all these processes or activities independently constitute offence of money laundering - projection/claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted is not the only process or activity which constitutes offence of money laundering - "and" proceeding "projection or claiming" is to be read as "or" - Explanation added by Finance Bill, 2019 - 2019 amendment to Section 3 is only clarificatory in nature - whether brought in by way of a Finance Bill or not would not affect the original main provision - relevant date under the Statute is not linked to the date on which the scheduled offence was committed, but the one on which the person indulged in the "process or activity" connect with proceeds of crime - authorised officers can prosecute for money laundering only when there exists proceeds of crime - authorised officers cannot proceed to attach and confiscate property on the basis of assumption but on the basis of credible evidence indicating involvement in "process or activity" with proceeds of crime. [Para 37-55] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 44(1)(a) - Special Courts -an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed - Section 44(1)(a) is directory in nature - it is read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-to-case basis. [Para 104-114] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - Bail - Post Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (held Section 45 pre- 2018 Amendment as unconstitutional) the provision was not obliterated from the statute book; it merely held that the provision as it stood then was violative of A. 14 and 21 - it was open for the Parliament to cure the defect - once cured, the provision got revived - observations in Nikesh distinguishing the challenge to twin bail condition under PMLA from Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab dealing with TADA Act (calling PMLA less heinous than terrorism) overruled - twin condition though strict does not impose absolute restraint on garnet of bail - similar twin conditions is provided in several other special legislations - the twin bail conditions is also applicable for anticipatory bail - Section 436A CrPC providing maximum period for which under-trial prisoner can be detained, could be invoked by person accused under 2002 Act. [Para 115-149] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 5 - Attachment, adjudication and confiscation - inbuilt safeguards provided - only Director and officers not below rank of Deputy Director can issue provisional attachment order - only upon satisfaction that the person possesses proceeds of crime; is charged with commission of scheduled offence; there is likelihood of concealment, can the officer proceed to issue provisional attachment order - provisional order operates for 180 days - On issuing order of provisional attachment copy of the order to be forward to Adjudicating Authority - officer passing such order to forward copy of order to Adjudicating Authority - officer to file complaint within 30 days of the order - 2015 amendment has rightfully removed the requirement of registering scheduled offence and also show substantial progress in investigation to pass provisional attachment order - if scheduled offence is not registered with local police it is open to ED officers to proceed with provisional attachment while contemporaneously sending information to the police. [Para 56-70] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 50 - Summoning Power - the officers under the act conducts inquiry to ascertain existence of proceeds of crime and involvement of persons in money-laundering - PMLA is not a penal statute - Section 45(1A) clarifies that regular police officer cannot take cognisance of offence of money laundering - provisions of CrPC and Evidence Act does not apply to the inquiry carried out by the ED officers - it is a sui generis legislation, not only dealing with the prevention, detection, attachment, confiscation, vesting and making it obligatory for the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to comply with certain essential formalities and make them accountable for failure thereof, and also permits prosecution of the persons found involved in the money- laundering activity - ED officers are not police officers - statement recorded by them cannot be hit by Articles 20(3) and 21. [Para 150-173] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 63 - Punishment for willfully providing false information causing arrest or search - not an unreasonable provision. [Para 174] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 8 - In the period between the confirmation of provisional attachment under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the passing of the formal order of confiscation, the person interested in the immovable property can enjoy it - direction under Section 8(4) to take possession of the property before a formal order of confiscation is passed, merely on the basis of confirmation of provisional attachment order, should be an exception and not a rule - FAFT permits non-conviction based confiscation model. [Para 71-76] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Property Law - Co-ownership - The co­owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a sole owner of the property. No co­owner has a definite right, title and interest in any particular item or a portion thereof. On the other hand, he has right, title and interest in every part and parcel of the joint property. He owns several parts of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner in the property. It is observed that, therefore, one co­owner can file a suit and recover the property against strangers and the decree would enure to all the co­owners. (Para 9.4) Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581

Prospective Overruling - The law declared by a court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically - Power to apply the doctrine of prospective overruling (so as to remove the adverse effect) must be exercised in the clearest possible term. Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Appeal against HC order that granted bail to POCSO Accused who allegedly raped and murdered his 11 year old daughter - Allowed - Ex facie, the allegations are grave, the punishment is severe and it cannot be said that there are no materials on record at all - Order set aside. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Public Employment - Examinations - The advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up of the application form and also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed - Candidate used different language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected. (Para 14-18) Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 630

Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 14 - Powers of Registrar - When a Trust property is transferred without prior sanction of the Registrar under Section 14 and/or without following a fair and transparent process, it can be always said that the Trust property is not being properly managed or administered - The Registrar can refuse sanction only when he is satisfied that the transactions will be prejudicial to the interests of the Public Trust. (Para 43 - 47) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Madhya Pradesh); Section 36 - Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 36 operate in different fields. When sub-Section (1) is applicable to a Public Trust, none of the provisions of the Public Trusts Act is applicable to the Trust. Sub-Section (2) is an independent power of the State Government to issue a notification exempting certain Public Trusts from all or any of the provisions of the Public Trusts Act. (Para 39) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Religious Endowment - Dedication of a property as religious endowment does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances - Extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time, which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes. (Para 20-25) R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 4(1) - Meaning of 'Initiation' for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act - Issuance and publication of Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette of the appropriate Government - When Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act - Only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied. (Para 27, 34) Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - The District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act - Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can exercise powers under Section 14. (Para 9-12) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 - Step to be taken by the CMM/DM under Section 14 is a ministerial step. While disposing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi ­judicial function or application of mind would require -The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the correctness of the information given in the application and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of secured assets. (Para 8) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14 (1A) - it is open to the CMM/DM to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor under Section 14(1A) of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 6.2) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Service Law - Appointment as Management Trainee (Technical), cannot be compared to the education and appointment of a medical doctor. (Para 12) Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Service Law - Caste Certificate - When a person secures appointment on the basis of a false certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment. (Para 14) Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572

Service Law - Direct Recruitment - The preparation of inter se merit list of the selected candidates is inevitable, even in the absence of an explicit provision in the rule or policy, the recruitment authority cannot place the candidates inter se in the select list under the rule of thumb or by adopting the methodology which is inconsistent with the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The inter se merit list of the selected candidates can be prepared as a combined effect of several factors like written test, objective test, viva­voce and/or other parameters as may have been prescribed keeping in view the special requirement of service. (Para 16) Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Service Law - Judicial Service - Munisffs - The roster points do not determine the seniority of the appointees who gain simultaneous appointments; that is to say, those who are appointed collectively on the same date or are deemed to be appointed on the same date, irrespective when they joined their posts - The roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process. It has nothing to do with the inter­ se seniority among those recruited. (Para 29) Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Service Law - Parity of Pay Scale - Well settled that there can be no equality to a wrong and/or illegality. Just because a librarian may have been erroneously granted the UGC pay scale, that would not entitle others to claim the UGC pay scale, if not applicable under the Rules. (Para 20) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Service Law - Promotion based on merit­ cum­ seniority - Seniority by itself is not the only qualification for promotion to a selection post - The comparative merit has to be evaluated in which seniority will be one of the factors only - Even a junior most person may steal a march over his seniors and jump the queue for accelerated promotion. (Para 16) Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560

Service Law - The doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way. Mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court had to consider all the relevant factors such as the mode of recruitment, qualifications for the post, the nature of work, the value of work, responsibilities involved and various other factors. (Para 18) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Service Law - The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the duties are identical in every aspect. (Para 23) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (Karnataka); Section 20 - Constitutional Validity - Karnataka High Court struck down the provision as unconstitutional, in appeal, the Supreme Court held: High Court has dealt with the question of validity of Section 20 in a casual manner. That cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the Constitutional Court for answering the assail on this count, in the first place, need to examine the scheme of the 1973 Act, its objects and purposes as also the question: whether the payment of amount specified as three hundred times the property tax payable in respect of such land on the date of publication would be a permissible method of determination of the amount or is per se unjust, unfair or unreasonable - Impugned judgment set aside and remanded. State of Karnataka v. B.R. Muralidhar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637

Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka); Section 18 - High Court is empowered to interfere with findings of fact only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence or suffering from error of law or there has been non-appreciation or non-consideration of a material on record by the court(s) below - That another view is possible based on the evidence on record can be no ground for the High Court to interfere with an order of court(s) below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - When the judgment and decree of the Civil Court is not 'according to law,' the High Court is certainly within its rights to set aside the decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (Para 6, 11) K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The Court is obliged to take judicial notice of the phenomenal rise in the price of real estate - Having paid an insignificant amount the Plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary equitable relief of Specific Performance. (Para 38-39) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The fact that the suit had been filed after three years, just before expiry of the period of limitation, is also a ground to decline the Plaintiff the equitable relief of Specific Performance for purchase of immovable property - The courts will also frown upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for one or two years to file a suit and obtain Specific Performance. The three year period is intended to assist the purchaser in special cases, as for example where the major part of the consideration has been paid to the vendor and possession has been delivered in part performance, where equity shifts in favour of the purchaser. (Para 43) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - Distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract - Both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance - While readiness means the capacity of the Plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the Plaintiff. (Para 34) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - In a suit for Specific Performance of a contract, the Court is required to pose unto itself the following questions, namely:- (i) Whether there is a valid agreement of sale binding on both the vendor and the vendee and (ii) Whether the Plaintiff has all along been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.Even in a first appeal, the first Appellate Court is duty bound to examine whether there was continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff to perform the contract. (Para 33-35) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16(c) - The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff a condition precedent for grant of the relief of Specific Performance-It is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances including availability of funds and mere statement or averment in plaint of readiness and willingness, would not suffice -Deposit of amount in court is not enough to arrive at conclusion that Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. (Para 24 - 46) U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588

Subordinate Judiciary - Supreme Court directs pay hike for subordinate judiciary as per the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission w.e.f January 1, 2016. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 635

Surname - A surname refers to the name a person shares with other members of that person's family, distinguished from that person's given name or names; a family name. Surname is not only indicative of lineage and should not be understood just in context of history, culture and lineage but more importantly the role it plays is with regard to the social reality along with a sense of being for children in their particular environment. Homogeneity of surname emerges as a mode to create, sustain and display 'family. Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Surname - Andhra Pradesh HC direction to a mother who remarried another person after death of her first husband to restore surname of a child - Further direction that wherever the records permit, the name of the natural father shall be shown and if it is otherwise impermissible, the name of the present husband shall be mentioned as step-father - Allowing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: Nothing unusual in mother, upon remarriage having given the child the surname of her husband or even giving the child in adoption to her husband - The direction to include the name of the present husband as step-father in documents is almost cruel and mindless of how it would impact the mental health and self-esteem of the child - The mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoption. Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Tenancy & Rent Control Law - Mesne Profits - After passing the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from the use of the premises - Once a decree for possession has been passed and the execution is delayed depriving the decree holder to reap the fruits, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders fixing reasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent required to be paid by a person who is holding over the property -Appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put reasonable terms and conditions as would in its opinion reasonable to compensate the decree holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree while granting the stay. M/s. Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd v. Rajendra Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 568

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - In a suit for ejectment filed by the landlord the material questions would be whether there was jural relationship of landlord – tenant between the parties and whether tenancy was validly terminated. (Para 8) K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 106, 111(a) - On determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary. K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 111 - Mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561

Trust - A Trust property cannot be alienated unless it is for the benefit of the Trust and/or its beneficiaries. The Trustees are not expected to deal with the Trust property, as if it is their private property. It is the legal obligation of the Trustees to administer the Trust and to give effect to the objects of the Trust. (Para 45) Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Trust - SC set aside the direction issued by MP HC for an investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against the trustees of the Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust of Indore over alleged misappropriation of government properties - Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act 1951 will apply to the Khasgi trust and directed the trustees to get the Khasgi Trust registered under the Public Trusts Act by making the necessary application within a period of one month - Registrar under the Public Trusts Act, having jurisdiction over Khasgi Trust, to call for the record of the Trust relating to all the alienations made by the Trustees. Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Section 33 - The authority cannot impose damages and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages. (Para 5) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Section 33 - Wide powers - Chief Wild Life Warden/appropriate authority may even pass an order of closure of the institution, if the institution continues to discharge the effluent in the sanctuary which may affect and/or damage the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary, after following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. (Para 5) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Words and Phrases - Bail - A bail is nothing but a surety inclusive of a personal bond from the accused. It means the release of an accused person either by the orders of the Court or by the police or by the Investigating Agency. It is a set of pre-trial restrictions imposed on a suspect while enabling any interference in the judicial process. Thus, it is a conditional release on the solemn undertaking by the suspect that he would cooperate both with the investigation and the trial - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. (Para 8-12) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Words and Phrases - Dictionary - A dictionary always contains the meaning of the words as they are understood by people for generations. It contains the meaning of a word which is already legitimized. Lexicographers include a word in the dictionary when it is used by many in the same way. (Para 39) Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Words and Phrases - May and Shall - Ordinarily the word "may" is directory. The expression 'may admit' confers discretion to admit. In contrast, the use of the word "shall" postulates a mandatory requirement. The use of the word "shall" raises a presumption that a provision is imperative. However, the prima facie presumption about the provision being imperative may be rebutted by other considerations such as the scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from the construction. (Para 64) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587

Words and Phrases - Trial - An extended meaning has to be given to this word for the purpose of enlargement on bail to include, the stage of investigation and thereafter - Primary considerations would obviously be different between these two stages. In the former stage, an arrest followed by a police custody may be warranted for a thorough investigation, while in the latter what matters substantially is the proceedings before the Court in the form of a trial. If we keep the above distinction in mind, the consequence to be drawn is for a more favourable consideration towards enlargement when investigation is completed, of course, among other factors - An appeal or revision shall also be construed as a facet of trial when it comes to the consideration of bail on suspension of sentence. (Para 7) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

NOMINAL INDEX

  1. Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569
  2. Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608
  3. Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi v. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 625
  4. Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578
  5. Ajmal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609]
  6. Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638
  7. All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 632
  8. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 635
  9. All Kerala Distributors Association v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 639
  10. Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600
  11. Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582
  12. Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599
  13. Asha Rani Gupta v. Sir Vineet Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 607
  14. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585
  15. Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593
  16. Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645
  17. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603
  18. Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589
  19. Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572
  20. Col. Vineet Raman Sharda v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 606
  21. Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642
  22. Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562
  23. Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581
  24. Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597
  25. Dilip v. Satish, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570
  26. Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631
  27. Gregory Patrao v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602
  28. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Deepak Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 644
  29. Hemant Kumar Verma v. Employee State Insurance Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 641
  30. Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598
  31. Imtiaz Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 636
  32. In Re Perry Kansagra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576
  33. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NCC Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 616
  34. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610
  35. K.M. Manjunath v. Erappa G., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561
  36. Kanchan Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 640
  37. Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 567
  38. Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 623
  39. M/s. Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd v. Rajendra Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 568
  40. Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563
  41. Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560
  42. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604
  43. Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574
  44. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590
  45. Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629
  46. Nanda Dulal Pradhan v. Dibakar Pradhan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579
  47. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613
  48. Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 620
  49. National Highway Authority of India v. Transstroy (India) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586
  50. National Highways Authority of India v. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584
  51. NCV Aishwarya v. AS Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
  52. Neilan International Co. Ltd. v. Powerica Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 566
  53. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashikala J. Ayachi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591
  54. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583
  55. Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) v. Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592
  56. R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634
  57. R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612
  58. Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605
  59. Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564
  60. Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615
  61. Rishi Pal Singh v. New India Assurance Co Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 646
  62. Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 643
  63. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577
  64. Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596
  65. Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565
  66. SS Engineers v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 617
  67. State Bank of India v. Dr.Vijay Mallya, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575
  68. State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622
  69. State of Karnataka v. B.R. Muralidhar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637
  70. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571
  71. State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
  72. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Engineering College, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626
  73. State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580
  74. Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601
  75. Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 614
  76. Tantia Constructions v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 624
  77. U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588
  78. Union of India v. Ex Naik Ram Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 611
  79. Union of India v. Ex Sep. R. Munusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 619
  80. Union of India v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 630
  81. Union of India v. Sharvan Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595
  82. Union of India v. United Planters Association of Southern India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573
  83. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587
  84. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633
  85. X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621
  86. X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 618


Next Story