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

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise [May 2 to May 8]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
16 May 2022 3:38 PM GMT
Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise [May 2 to May 8]
x

Advocate - Senior Advocate Designation - Instead of ten marks to be allocated to a counsel who has put in between ten to twenty years of practice, the marks be allocated commensurate with the standing of the person at the Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be allocated for every year of practice between ten to twenty years. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2022 LiveLaw...

Advocate - Senior Advocate Designation - Instead of ten marks to be allocated to a counsel who has put in between ten to twenty years of practice, the marks be allocated commensurate with the standing of the person at the Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be allocated for every year of practice between ten to twenty years. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Arbitration - Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 - The Act is liable to be held unconstitutional on the ground of encroachment upon the judicial powers of the State - The Act has the effect of annulling the awards which have become "Rules of Court", is a transgression on the judicial functions of the State and therefore, violative of doctrine of "separation of powers". (Para 122, 127(iii)) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Arbitration Act, 1940 - The powers exercised by the court under the provisions of the 1940 Act are judicial powers and that the power to make an award "Rule of Court" is not a mechanical power. (Para 127 (ii), 113) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - An application under section 11(6) shall be maintainable only in a case where there is a contract between the parties containing the arbitration agreement and the appointment procedure is prescribed and is agreed upon in writing. (Para 6.2) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6),14(1)(a) - Once the arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent and it was alleged that the mandate of the sole arbitrator stood terminated in view of section 14(1)(a), the application under section 11(6) to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator in view of section 14(1)(a) shall not be maintainable - The aggrieved party has to approach the concerned "court" as per sub­section (2) of section 14 of the Act. (Para 8) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12, 14(1)(a), 15(1)(a) - If the challenge to the arbitrator is made on any of the grounds mentioned in section 12 of the Act, the party aggrieved has to submit an appropriate application before the Arbitral Tribunal itself - Whenever there is a dispute and/or controversy that the mandate of the arbitrator is to be terminated on the grounds mentioned in section 14(1)(a), such a controversy/dispute has to be raised before the concerned "court" only and after the decision by the concerned "court" as defined under section 2(e) and ultimately it is held that the mandate of the arbitrator is terminated, thereafter, the arbitrator is to be substituted accordingly, that too, according to the rules that were applicable to the initial appointment of the arbitrator - So far as the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator and/or termination of the proceedings mentioned in other provisions like in section 15(1)(a) where he withdraws from office for any reason; or (b) by or pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the dispute need not be raised before the concerned court -The same procedure is required to be followed which was followed at the time of appointment of the sole arbitrator whose mandate is terminated and/or who is replaced. (Para 6.7) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7)(a) - If there is an agreement between the parties to the contrary, the Arbitral Tribunal would lose its discretion to award interest and will have to be guided by the agreement between the parties - In the absence of such an agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal would have a discretion to exercise its powers under clause (a) of sub­section (7) of Section 31- The discretion is wide enough. (Para 14-18) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 11(5) - Even in the absence of any arbitration agreement in writing between the parties, with consent the parties may refer the dispute for arbitration and appoint a sole arbitrator/arbitrators by mutual consent and parties may agree mutually on a procedure for appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators even in the absence of any written agreement. (Para 7.2) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Sections 8 and 11 - Group of Companies doctrine - There is a clear need for having a re­look at the doctrinal ingredients concerning the group of companies doctrine - Whether the phrase 'claiming through or under' in Sections 8 and 11 could be interpreted to include 'Group of Companies' doctrine? Whether the 'Group of companies' doctrine as expounded by Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. (2013) 1 SCC 641 and subsequent judgments are valid in law? - Issues referred to a larger bench. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 23 Rule 3 and Order 43 Rule 1A - An aggrieved person against the compromise decree has a right to file an application before the Court which granted the decree - He has the right to avail either the remedy of appeal in terms of Order 43 Rule 1A CPC or by way of an application before the court granting decree. Vipan Aggarwal v. Raman Gandotra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 442

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - At the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC only the averments and allegations in the application/plaint are to be considered and not the written 37 statement and/or reply to the application and/or the defence. (Para 12) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled discussed. (Para 24-26) Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - High Court or Sessions Court have a wide discretion in deciding an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. However, the said discretion must be exercised after due application of the judicial mind and not in a routine manner - Considerations for bail discussed. (Para 13- 19) Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Posters saying "Bhaiya is back" was put up to celebrate the release of a rape-accused on bail - Bail set aside - Brazen conduct of the accused has evoked a bona fide fear in complainant's mind that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses. Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Entry 13 of List III of Seventh Schedule - The subject of arbitration is in the Concurrent List, the State can also make a law with regard to the same. The only requirement is that to validate such a law, it is necessary to reserve the same for consideration of the President of India and obtain his assent. When such an assent is obtained, the provisions of the State Law or Act so enacted would prevail in the State concerned, notwithstanding its repugnancy with an earlier Parliamentary enactment made on the subject. (Para 62, 127(i)) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Bodily integrity is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no individual can be forced to be vaccinated - Persons who are keen to not be vaccinated on account of personal beliefs or preferences, can avoid vaccination, without anyone physically compelling them to be vaccinated. However, if there is a likelihood of such individuals spreading the infection to other people or contributing to mutation of the virus or burdening of the public health infrastructure, thereby affecting communitarian health at large, protection of which is undoubtedly a legitimate State aim of paramount significance in this collective battle against the pandemic, the Government can regulate such public health concerns by imposing certain limitations on individual rights that are reasonable and proportionate to the object sought to be fulfilled. (Para 49, 89(iii) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21 - Personal autonomy of an individual involves the right of an individual to determine how they should live their own life, which consequently encompasses the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment in the sphere of individual health. (Para 49, 89(iii)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Whether the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 applicable to an interim order of stay passed by High Court in writ proceedings (writ appeal) - The order of stay granted by the Division Bench in the High Court cannot be treated as having no force - This Court cannot be understood as having intended to apply the principle to the fact situation which is presented in this case. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Judicial review of executive decisions based on expert opinion - Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. (Para 21) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32, 226 - Policy decisions - Court would be slow in interfering with matters of policy, especially those connected to public health. There is also no doubt that wide latitude is given to executive opinion which is based on expert advice. However, it does not mean that this Court will not look into cases where violation of fundamental rights is involved and the decision of the executive is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 25) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Constitution of India; Article 226 - Where a party questions only the failure of the Registering Authority to perform his statutory duties in the course of the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform their duties within the bounds of law. (Para 53) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - It is not open to the Court in contempt jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings. Kangaro Industries v. Jaininder Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437

Covid-19 - Vaccination - Adverse effects following immunization is crucial for creating awareness around vaccines and their efficacy, apart from being instrumental in further scientific studies around the pandemic- Union of India directed to facilitate the reporting of suspected adverse events by individuals and private doctors on a virtual platform and the reports so made shall be publicly accessible after being given unique identification numbers, without listing any personal or confidential data of the persons reporting. (Para 84, 89(viii)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Covid-19 - Vaccination - Cannot conclude that restricted emergency use approvals had been granted to COVISHIELD and COVAXIN in haste, without thorough review of the relevant data - Subject to the protection of privacy of individual subjects, with respect to ongoing clinical trials and trials that may be conducted subsequently for COVID-19 vaccines, all relevant data required to be published under the extant statutory regime must be made available to the public without undue delay. (Para 76, 89(vi)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Covid-19 - Vaccination policy - Current vaccination policy of the Union of India is informed by relevant considerations and cannot be said to be unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary - Contrasting scientific opinion coming forth from certain quarters to the effect that natural immunity offers better protection against COVID-19 is not pertinent for determination of the issue before us. (Para 56,89(iv)) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

COVID-19 - Vaccine mandates - Not proportionate - No data has been placed by the Union of India or the States appearing before us, controverting the material placed by the Petitioner in the form of emerging scientific opinion which appears to indicate that the risk of transmission of the virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons. In light of this, restrictions on unvaccinated individuals imposed through various vaccine mandates by State Governments / Union Territories cannot be said to be proportionate. Till the infection rate remains low and any new development or research finding emerges which provides due justification to impose reasonable and proportionate restrictions on the rights of unvaccinated individuals, we suggest that all authorities in this country, including private organizations and educational institutions, review the relevant orders and instructions imposing restrictions on unvaccinated individuals in terms of access to public places, services and resources, if not already recalled. (Para 89(v)). Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Abuse of power is one of the criteria for testing whether a public body could resile from a prima facie legitimate expectation - If the government authority induced an expectation which was substantive, the upsetting of that expectation, through departure from the expected course of action in the absence of compelling public interest, would be so unfair, that it would amount to abuse of power. [Para 33] State of Bihar v. Shyama Nandan Mishra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Where the substantive legitimate expectation is not ultra vires the power of the authority and the court is in a position to protect it, the State cannot be allowed to change course and belie the legitimate expectation - Regularity, Predictability, Certainty and Fairness are necessary concomitants of Government's action - Failure to keep commitment would permit the State's action to be interdicted. [Para 34] State of Bihar v. Shyama Nandan Mishra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449

Doctrine of Pith and Substance - When the legislative competence of a State Legislature is questioned on the ground that it encroaches upon the legislative competence of the Parliament, since some entries are bound to be overlapping, in such a situation, the doctrine of pith and substance has to be applied to determine as to which entry does a given piece of legislation relate to. Once it is so determined, any incidental trenching on the field reserved to the other legislature is of no consequence. The court has to look at the substance of the matter. The true character of the legislation has to be ascertained. Regard must be had to the enactment as a whole, to its main objects and to the scope and effect of its provision - Incidental and superficial encroachments are to be disregarded - The predominance of the Union List would not prevent the State Legislature from dealing with any matter with. (Para 71) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Section 45-AA - Once the statute has fixed the condition of pre-deposit before filing an appeal, such condition is required to be satisfied - Giving appellate authority a discretion to waive of the amount determined, is clearly not sustainable. (Para 8) Employees State Insurance Health Care v. Maruti Suzuki, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 148, 148A - Finance Act, 2021 - (i) The respective impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The respective assessing officers shall within thirty days from today provide to the assessees the information and material relied upon by the Revenue so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a) be dispensed with as a one time measure vis­à­vis those notices which have been issued under Section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass an order in terms of section 148A(d) after following the due procedure as required under section 148A(b) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; (iv) All the defences which may be available to the assessee under section 149 and/or which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law and whatever rights are available to the Assessing Officer under the Finance Act, 2021 are kept open and/or shall continue to be available and; (v) The present order shall substitute/modify respective judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts quashing the similar notices issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act irrespective of whether they have been assailed before this Court or not - The present order shall govern, not only the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but shall also be made applicable in respect of the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts across the country and therefore the present order shall be applicable to pan India. (Para 8) Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444

Insurance Law - Burden is on the insurer to show case falls within the purview of exclusion clause- In case of ambiguity, benefit goes to the insured. (Para 12) Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Insurance Law - When the policy itself defines the acts of terrorism in the Exclusion Clause, the terms of the policy being a concluded contract will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, the parties cannot rely upon the definitions of 'terrorism' in various penal statutes since the Exclusion Clause contains an exhaustive definition of acts of terrorism. (Para 13) Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443

Interpretation of Statutes - Each and every word and each and every phrase mentioned in the provision will have to be given effect to. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. (Para 21) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Judicial Misconduct - Showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct. The extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration. It is often said that "the public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water". A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law. As often quoted, a judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. (Para 15) Muzaffar Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Newspaper Reports - Courts cannot take judicial notice of facts stated in a news item published in a newspaper. A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence, unless proved by the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. (Para 70) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Precedent - Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved. The generality of the expressions which are found in a judgment cannot be considered to be intended to be exposition of the whole law. They will have to be governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. (Para 31) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Precedent - Ratio Decidendi - Ratio decidendi is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. It has been held that one additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. (Para 33) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Sections 3, 4 - Even in cases of PMLA, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities - The allegation must be proved beyond 20 reasonable doubt in the Court -It is incumbent upon the Court to look into the allegation and the material collected in support thereto and to find out whether the prima facie offence is made out. Unless the allegations are substantiated by the authorities and proved against a person in the court of law, the person is innocent. (Para 18) J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Registration Act, 1908 - If the Registering Officer under the Act is construed as performing only a mechanical role without any independent mind of his own, then even Government properties may be sold and the documents registered by unscrupulous persons driving the parties to go to civil court. Such an interpretation may not advance the cause of justice. Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908 - There is and there can be no dispute about the fact that while the Registering Officer under the Registration Act, 1908, may not be competent to examine whether the executant of a document has any right, title or interest over the property which is the subject matter of the document presented for registration, he is obliged to strictly comply with the mandate of law contained in the various provisions of the Act. (Para 11) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32 & 33 - Authentication of PoA does not mean registration - A careful look at Sections 32 and 33 will show that while speaking about PoA, these provisions do not use the word "registration". While Section 32(c) uses the words "executed and authenticated", Section 33(1) uses the words "recognised" and "authenticated". Therefore it is clear that the word "authenticated" is not to be understood to be the same as "registered. (Para 18, 20) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908; Section 32(c) - In cases where a document is presented for registration by the agent, (i) of the executant; or (ii) of the claimant; or (iii) of the representative or assign of the executant or claimant, the same cannot be accepted for registration unless the agent is duly authorized by a PoA executed and authenticated in the manner provided in the Act. (Para 16) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Registration Act, 1908; Section 34 - Section 34(3)(c) imposes an obligation on the Registering Officer to satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent. (Para 29) Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445

Service Law - If the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not 6 because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered - if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess. Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438

Service Law - Madhya Pradesh - Teachers in govt aided private educational institutions entitled to supernnuation age of 65 years. Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Service Law - Mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service - Mere suppression of material / false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee / recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen - The effect of suppression of material / false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance / suitability of the employee into service - The person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441

2022 LiveLaw (SC) May Weekly Nominal Index Part 1 (437 to 456)

  1. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440
  2. Asset Reconstruction Company v. SP Velayutham, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445
  3. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455
  4. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452
  5. Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 446
  6. Employees State Insurance Health Care v. Maruti Suzuki, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453
  7. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451
  8. J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 456
  9. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439
  10. Kangaro Industries v. Jaininder Jain, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437
  11. Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448
  12. Muzaffar Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 450
  13. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443
  14. Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441
  15. Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447
  16. State of Bihar v. Shyama Nandan Mishra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449
  17. Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454
  18. Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438
  19. Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444
  20. Vipan Aggarwal v. Raman Gandotra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 442


Next Story